Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001565 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)

Date of hearing: 13 July 2012

Date of decision: 13 July 2012

Name of the Appellant: Shri Khanapuram Suresh, Through Advocate, Rakesh Sanghi, C308, UPASANA, Ahuja Estate, 41970, Abids, Hyderabad – 500 001.

Name of the Public Authority: CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

The Appellant was present along with Shri Pankaj. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:(i) Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO, (ii) Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

The Appellant was present in the Hyderabad studio of the NIC along with his advocate. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.

2. The Appellant had wanted to know if the collegium of the Supreme Court of India was considering the candidature of a particular district judge of Andhra Pradesh for appointment as a judge of the High Court and all related information in this regard. The CPIO had informed him that such information could not be disclosed not only because it was exempt in terms of the provisions of subsection 1(e) and (j) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but also because in another similar matter, the Supreme Court had stayed an order passed by the CIC for disclosure of such information. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal after endorsing the response of the CPIO.

3. The subject matter of the information relates to the records and documents arising out of the discussions and considerations made by the collegium of the Supreme Court of India. In the past, the CIC had ordered disclosure of such records and documents. This order of the CIC was later stayed by the Supreme Court and the stay continues. Since the information sought in this case is exactly similar to the one in which the Supreme Court has granted a stay, the desired information cannot be disclosed. It would be better to await the final disposal of that matter by the Supreme Court when it would be clear if such category of information would have to be disclosed under the right to information or not.

4. As of now, there is no information to be disclosed. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)

Chief Information Commissioner