(Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.)
Central Public Information Officer, SCI and Another ____ Appellant(s);
v.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal __________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 10044/2010, decided on August 17, 2016
With
Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 10045/2010
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. To persuade the Court that the matters should be heard by the present three judge Bench notwithstanding the order dated 26-11-20101 passed by a two-judge Bench of this Court, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the seven judge Bench decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India2, particularly paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 thereof.
2. We find that a similar reliance was placed by Shri Bhushan before the two-judge Bench that had rendered the order dated 26-11-20101. The said fact is recorded in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order. Thereafter in paragraph 11, the two-judge Bench observed as follows: 11. Whether the said decision would be applicable when such information is sought under the provisions of the Right to information Act is an important question that is required to be gone into.
3. In paragraph 12 of its order the two judge Bench of this Court has further observed that it is of the Sconsidered opinion that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved in the present case which is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench. The questions of law formulated by the two judge Bench are set out in paragraph 15 of the aforesaid order which are as follows:
4. Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought? Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?
5. Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?
6. Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act?
7. Having heard Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent and having considered the paragraphs referred to above in the decision in S.P. Gupta2 (supra) we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the two judge Bench of this Court in its order dated 26-11-20101. Accordingly, we refer the questions, extracted above, to the Constitution Bench for its esteemed opinion. As Shri Bhushan has expressed some anxiety on account of the long pendency of the matters we leave it open for Shri Bhushan to make a mention of the same either before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India or before the Constitution Bench as and when constituted for an appropriate order in this regard.
8. Office to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
———
1 Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2011) 1 SCC 496
2 1981 Supp SCC 87
