NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21019 of 2022
Anjali Bhardwaj       ...Appellant(S)
Versus
CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell)    ...Respondent(S)
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment
and   order   dated   27.07.2022   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   Letters   Patent   Appeal   (LPA)   No.
442/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court
has   dismissed   the   said   LPA   and   has   confirmed   the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   4129/2022,   the   original   writ
petitioner   –   original   applicant   has   preferred   the   present
petition for Special Leave to Appeal. 
1

2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   petition   for   Special   Leave
to Appeal in a nutshell are as under: ­ 
2.1 That   the   petitioner   herein   preferred   an   RTI   application
before   the   Central   Public   Information   Officer   (CPIO),
Supreme   Court   of   India.   The   petitioner   sought   the
following information: ­ 
(i) Please   provide   a   copy   of   the   agenda   of   the
meeting   of   the   Collegium   of   the   Supreme   Court
held on December 12, 2018. 
(ii) Kindly   provide   a   copy   of   the   decisions   taken   on
the   meeting   of   the   Collegium   of   the   Supreme
Court held on December 12, 2018.
(iii) Kindly   provide   a   copy   of   the   resolutions   of   the
Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.
2.2 Vide   communication   dated   11.03.2019   the   prayer   of   the
petitioner   came   to   be   turned   down.   That   thereafter   the
petitioner   preferred   the   first   appeal   before   the   First
Appellate Authority  under  the  RTI  Act, 2005 being  Appeal
No.   75/2019.   The   First   Appellate   Authority   rejected   the
said   appeal   by   observing   that   as   such   there   was   no   final
decision(s)   taken   in   the   Collegium   meeting   held   on
2

12.12.2018   and   there   was   no   final   decision   which
culminated into the resolution and therefore, in absence of
such resolution the information need not be supplied. The
appellant   preferred   second   appeal   which   also   came   to   be
dismissed.   The   learned   Single   Judge   also   dismissed   Writ
Petition   No.   4129/2022   by   reiterating   that   in   the
Collegium   meeting   held   on   12.12.2018   there   was   no   final
decision   taken   and   even   as   observed   in   the   subsequent
resolution   meeting   held   on   10.01.2019,   it   was   so   stated
that   the   then   Collegium   on   12.12.2018   took   certain
decisions, however, the required consultation could not be
undertaken   and   completed.   Therefore,   the   learned   Single
Judge   was   of   the   opinion   that   as   there   was   no   formal
resolution   came   to   be   drawn   up,   there   is   no   question   of
providing   any   decision   taken   in   the   meeting   held   on
12.12.2018. The order passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing   the   writ   petition   has   been   confirmed   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned
judgment   and   order.   Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied
with   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   petitioner
preferred the present petition. 
3

3. Shri   Prashant   Bhushan,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   petitioner   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in
fact   certain   decisions   were   taken   by   the   Collegium   in   the
meeting   held   on   12.12.2018   and   therefore,   the   decisions
which   were   taken,   were   required   to   be   uploaded   in   the
public domain and the decisions which were taken by the
Collegium   in   the   meeting   held   on   12.12.2018   were
required   to   be   informed   and   the   particulars   of   which   are
required to be given under the RTI Act. 
3.1 Shri   Prashant   Bhushan,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon one article
published on the website of the Bar and Bench wherein it
was   mentioned   that   one   of   the   members   of   the   Collegium
stated that he was disappointed that decision taken in the
meeting   on   12.12.2018   was   not   uploaded   on   Supreme
Court’s website. It is submitted that as per the information
disclosed   in   the   Press   by   one   of   the   members   of   the
Collegium, who was part of the meeting dated 12.12.2018,
it was specifically stated that certain decisions were taken,
4

however,   in   the   subsequent   meeting   of   the   Collegium   on
10.01.2019  earlier   decisions   were  changed.   Shri  Prashant
Bhushan,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
petitioner   has   submitted   that   therefore,   it   may   not   be
accepted   that   no   decision(s)   was/were   taken   in   the
Collegium   meeting   held   on   12.12.2018.   It   is   submitted
that everybody has a right to know the decision(s) taken by
the   Collegium   even   as   per   the   earlier   Resolution   of   the
Supreme   Court   dated   03.10.2017,   by   which,   it   was
resolved   that   the   decision(s)   taken   by   the   Collegium   shall
be uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website. 
4. We   have   heard   Shri   Prashant   Bhushan,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. 
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner
asked   for   the   information   on   the   decision(s)   taken   by   the
Collegium   in   its   meeting   held   on   12.12.2018.   Reliance   is
placed upon the Resolution dated 03.10.2017, by which, it
was   resolved   to   upload   the   decision/resolution   of   the
Collegium on Supreme Court’s website. Relying upon some
article   published   in   the   media   and   the   interview   given   by
5

one of  the  members of  the Collegium  who  was  part  of the
Collegium   held   on   12.12.2018,   it   is   asserted   by   the
petitioner   that   in   fact   some   decision(s)   were   taken   by   the
Collegium   on   the   elevation   of   two   Chief   Justices   of   the
High   Courts   to   the   Supreme   Court.   However,   from   the
subsequent   Resolution   passed   by   the   Collegium   on
10.01.2019, it appears that as such no  final decision was
taken   on   the   elevation   to   the   Supreme   Court.   Some
discussions might have taken place. But unless and until,
a final decision is taken after due consultation and on the
basis   of   such   a   final   decision   a   final   resolution   is   drawn,
whatever discussions had taken place cannot be said to be
a   final   decision   of   the   Collegium.   The   actual   resolution
passed   by   the   Collegium   only   can   be   said   to   be   a   final
decision  of the  Collegium   and till  then  at  the most,  it can
be said to be a tentative decision during  the consultation.
It   is   to   be   noted   that   a   final   decision   is   taken   by   the
Collegium   only   after   due   consultation.   During   the
consultation   if   some   discussion   takes   place   but   no   final
decision is taken and no resolution is drawn, it cannot be
said   that   any   final   decision   is   taken   by   the   Collegium.
6

Collegium   is   a   multi­member   body   whose   decision
embodied in the resolution that may be formally drawn up
and   signed.   When   in   the   subsequent   Resolution   dated
10.01.2019,   it   is   specifically   mentioned   that   in   the   earlier
meeting   held   on   12.12.2018   though   some   decisions   were
taken   but   ultimately   the   consultation   was   not   completed
and   concluded   and   therefore,   the   matter/agenda   items
was/were   adjourned.   Therefore,   as   no   final   decision   was
taken which was culminated into a final resolution drawn
and signed by all the members of the Collegium, the same
was not required to be disclosed in the public domain and
that too under the RTI Act. Whatever is discussed shall not
be   in   the   public   domain.   As   per   the   Resolution   dated
03.10.2017 only the final resolution and the final decision
is   required   to   be   uploaded   on   the   Supreme   Court’s
website. 
5.1 Now   so   far   as   the   reliance   placed   upon   some   of   the   news
item/article published in the  media in which  views of one
of the members of the Collegium is noted, is concerned, we
do   not   want   to   comment   upon   the   same.   The   subsequent
7

Resolution   dated   10.01.2019   is   very   clear   in   which   it   is
specifically   stated   that   in   the   earlier   meeting   held   on
12.12.2018, the process for consultation was not over and
remained   un­concluded.   At   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   is
observed   that   after   due   deliberation   and   discussion   and
after   completing   the   consultative   process,   when   a   final
decision   is   taken   and   thereafter,   the   resolution   is   drawn
and signed by the members of the Collegium can be said to
be   a   final   decision   and   till   then   it   remains   the   tentative
decision.   Only   after   the   final   resolution   is   drawn   and
signed   by   the   members   of   the   Collegium,   which   is   always
after   completing   the   due   procedure   and   the   process   of
discussion/deliberations   and   consultation,   the   same
required to be published on the Supreme Court website as
per Resolution dated 03.10.2017. 
5.2 In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   no
reliance   can   be   placed   on   the   news   report   and/or   some
article   in   the   media.   What   is   required   to   be   seen   is   the
final   resolution   which   is   ultimately   drawn   and   signed   by
the members of the Collegium.    
8

6. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,
there   is   no   substance   in   the   present   Special   Leave   to
Appeal   and   the   same   deserves   to   be   dismissed   and   is
accordingly dismissed. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI, 
DECEMBER 09, 2022.
9