NEW DELHI, Nov 16: Disclosure of information related to setting of Supreme Court benches outside Delhi may “arouse regional feelings” and create “needless political controversy” resulting in law and order problem, the CIC has held allowing the apex court to withhold it.
“We find force in the arguments of the respondent that the information sought, if disclosed at this stage, could lead to needless controversy of a political nature, which should best be avoided taking into account the need for efficient functioning of the Supreme Court,” the Full Bench said.
Appellant Rajiv Rufus from Madurai has sought information inter alia about the copies of minutes of the meeting of the Full Court of the Supreme Court, the file notings and letters sent by the Chief Justice of India to the Parliamentary Standing Committee relating to the setting up of benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi.
Supreme Court had rejected to disclose the information, saying opinions in the Full Court meeting are expressed confidentially by the judges in the course of discussions and divulging these would make the system unworkable in practice.
Intervening in the matter, another activist R K Jain said during the hearing that comments or views expressed at the full court meetings are not personal and are part of the decision making process in a matter.
“The question is about openness of the views expressed and mere confidentiality is not a ground to claim exemption… right to justice is a fundamental right and since the Supreme Court is functioning only from Delhi, everybody has to come to Delhi to file or defend the case before it,” Jain submitted before the Commission.
He said that in the interest of democracy and transparency, the minutes of the various committees of the Supreme Court cannot be withheld.
During a previous hearing before the then Chief Information Commissioner Sushma Singh, the Supreme Court had defended withholding these records saying such information invariably leads to “politicisation of the entire issue”.
Terming it a sensitive issue, the counsel for Supreme Court Rohit Sharma had said if information pertaining to such issue is disclosed at a premature stage, it will also lead to unnecessary speculation in the public about different view points on the subject.
“In case of such politicisation, taking a proper and well considered decision would not be possible. Thus, the system would become unworkable in practice and therefore the disclosure of the information requested cannot be allowed in view of the interest of efficient functioning of the institution and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information as recognised by the Supreme Court in the above case,” he had said.
In its present order, the bench comprising Information Commissioner M A Khan Yusufi, Manjula Parashar and Vijai Sharma said that no final decision has been taken by the authorities concerned on the issue, which is still under discussion with the stakeholders.
“It is felt that the disclosure of this sensitive information could arouse regional feelings leading to law and order problems. Hence, this case falls under Section 8(1) (a) of the Act,” it said.
The Commission rejected Rufus’ and Jain’s argument, saying there was no tenable reason to disclose the sought information in public interest under Section 8(2) of the Act.
“In view of above, we are not inclined to allow the disclosure of information regarding the meetings of the full court of the Supreme Court relating to setting up of its benches outside Delhi,” it said. (PTI)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel