"Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides": Supreme Court rejects plea seeking details of December 12, 2018, Collegium meeting held, "Whatever is discussed shall not be in the public domain. Only final decision required to be uploaded"

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea challenging an order of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed a petition seeking details of the Supreme Court Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018 that were never made public [Anjali Bhardwaj v CPIO, Supreme Court].
|
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held that while some discussions might have taken place at that Collegium meeting, that cannot be said to be the final decision.
"Some discussions might have taken place, but they cannot be said to be final decision. Only final resolution considered decision. Collegium is a multi member body whose decision is a resolution. The consultation (of the Collegium in that meeting) was not concluded and was, therefore, adjourned," the Court said.
The Court emphasised that only the final discussion of the Collegium is required to be uploaded on the Supreme Court website and not the discussions which happen within the Collegium.
"Whatever is discussed shall not be in public domain. Only final decision required to be uploaded," the Court said.
The judgment was rendered on a plea by activist Anjali Bhardwaj who argued that information cannot be denied on the basis of assertion that it does not exist.
“Multiple documents, including official records, reference the agenda for the collegium meeting,” the petition said.
The plea filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan stated that the information regarding appointments and recommendations by the Supreme Court Collegium cannot be regarded as a protected class of documents, as no information relevant to public interest can be covered under the veil of secrecy.
The order under challenge had upheld a decision of the single-judge which had come on appeal against an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) upholding the stance of the Supreme Court that no disclosure about the meeting can be made since no resolution was passed in that meeting, as the required consultation could not be completed.
The petitioner had said that on October 3, 2017, the Collegium had resolved to publicise its decisions on its website, whenever recommendations are sent to the government with regard to initial elevation of judges to the High Courts, their appointments as permanent judges, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices/judges and elevation to the Supreme Court.
It was stated that on December 12, 2018, a meeting of the Collegium was held in which certain decisions were taken, but no information about the same was put on the website.
On January 10, 2019, a newly constituted Collegium of the apex court (without Justice Madan B Lokur) met again and passed a resolution stating that it had met on December 12, 2018 to consider and recommend names for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and to consider the proposal for transfer of Chief Justices and judges of the High Courts.
Bhardwaj had said that it was apparent that there was a meeting of Collegium on December 12, 2018 with an agenda and some decisions were in fact, taken during that meeting.
The petitioner filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the apex court on February 26, 2019. Through a letter dated March 11, 2019, the CPIO stated that the information sought was held to be not proper by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), and therefore, not relevant.
The Second Appeal before the CIC was also denied on the same grounds on December 16, 2021.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- Only Dhimmis can be a good Hindu – An article on Shekhar Gupta’s ThePrint argues ‘defending namaz’
- "Restoring Fair Entry to Justice": How Chief Justice Surya Kant reshaped the Supreme Court of India by ending oral mentioning, fixing unfair access to Court No. 1, and replacing urgency with written rules, listing, transparent process
- “Judgment does not necessarily relate to the judiciary system”: “There is a limit to criticizing judges. Give us a break” laments Justice Chandrachud, but in Nupur case emotions of judges were so extensive that it “diluted the beheading in Udaipur”
- "Law is not law, if it violates principles of eternal justice": Justice DY Chandrachud is set to become India’s 50th CJI, a judge known for his often liberal and dissenting views has been part of some landmark verdicts of Ayodhya, Section 377 & Sabrimala
- Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a Muslim man’s second marriage is not "void" under Section 494 IPC, as Sharia permits polygamy, highlighting how Indian courts often prioritize personal law over secular bigamy rules
- "In this hellhole of hatelusters, what's needed is a hatebuster": Rampur Court sentences Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan to 3-year imprisonment for hate speech against UP CM Yogi Adityanath in 2019 and trying to incite violence between two communities
- "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable": Supreme Court & High Court Litigant Association filed complaint against Justice Chandrachud accusing him of passing order benefiting his son’s client, Bar Council dismisses claims
- 5 lakh kg of temple jewellery has been melted so far, DMK government planning to melt even more
- "As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law’ by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Muslim girl above 16 is competent to marry any person of choice": Punjab and Haryana HC cites Sharia to justify child marriage
- Writ petition of Irfan scrapped by Allahabad High Court of seeking permission for Azaan on loudspeakers in the mosque, says ‘not a fundamental right’: Read details of the case
- ‘Lord Krishna was the first mediator’: SC slams UP’s ₹500cr temple takeover bid, halts fund use, questions secret court order, and proposes retired judge panel to oversee Banke Bihari Temple while preserving goswami traditions amid ordinance challenge
- "Power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law": Kerala High Court - Nudity should not be tied to sex. Mere sight of the naked upper body of the woman should not be deemed to be sexual, Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is obscenity
- "Success & all good things in life, start with a genuine concern for others": Supreme Court collegium publishing RAW, IB opinions on candidates for judgeship a matter of concern, crores of pending cases, delay of justice is denial of justice: Kiren Rijiju
- Allahabad HC’s Justice Anil Kumar rules birth caste is permanent despite marriage or faith, a move sparked by an Aligarh clash that may shift the future of SC/ST rights and lead to legal misuse
- "Justice delayed is justice denied": Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme Court, 'mere acceptance of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence'
















