We all knew that the SC would stay the CIC's order on appointment of SC judges as it did today.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/407702_SC-stays-CIC-s-order-on-appointment-of-judges-issue Will CIC now threaten SC with Indian Penal Code as the did DoPT? <snip> SC stays CIC's order on appointment of judges issue STAFF WRITER 16:56 HRS IST New Delhi, Dec 4 (PTI) Giving relief to itself, the Supreme Court today stayed the directions passed against it by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to disclose informations on judges appointment to the apex court by superseding seniors. The apex court also put on hold the operation of the CIC order directing it to divulge communication between Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and Justice R Raghupathy of Madras High Court on alleged interference by a Union minister in a sub-judice matter. The appeal filed by the apex court registry was mentioned by Attorney General G E Vahanvati before a Bench comprising justices B Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma which issued notice to the RTI applicant on whose plea the CIC has passed the orders. also http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5299228.cms NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Central Information Commission (CIC) order asking it to divulge details relating to appointment of judges and also correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the alleged interference of a Union minister in a court case. An appeal from the Supreme Court to itself may sound odd but its unease with CIC's orders had pushed the apex court to exercise the unusual option. The SC had moved the SC on Monday over the issue. The SLP filed by the apex court against the CIC's direction was mentioned by attorney general G E Vahanvati before a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma which issued notice to the RTI applicant on whose plea the CIC had passed the direction. The court sought the reply within three weeks and granted another two weeks for filing of rejoinder. The attorney general along with Advocate Devadatt Kamat sought stay on the CIC's direction saying several important question of law arise in the matter which required urgent hearing. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for RTI applicant S C Aggrawal, was present in the court when the matter came up. The Supreme Court had earlier moved the Delhi High Court questioning a CIC order directing opening up of information relating to declaration of assets by SC judges. The appeal was filed in the SC because of the feeling that the apex court, being the final arbiter, should lay down guidelines on applicability of RTI Act to matters relating to administration of justice. Assailing the direction to make public information which were available only with the CJI, the apex court in its two petitions, settled by attorney general G E Vahanvati and drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamat, said the CJI held the information pertaining to appointment of judges in a fiduciary capacity, and hence it should be exempted from being made public under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The short-cut taken by the apex court's central principal information officer (CPIO) in moving the SC instead of the normal course of approaching the HC, had raised eyebrows. The CPIO said it decided to come straight to the SC because "this is an issue of far-reaching consequences and substantial questions of law of general public interest which have to be ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the top court of the country". In one appeal, it challenged the CIC order directing the SC to give details of the decision not recommending the elevation of Justice A P Shah, Chief Justice of Delhi HC, to SC even as the collegium headed by the CJI suggested names of chief justices of four other HCs for appointment to the apex court. In the second appeal, it sought setting aside of the CIC order asking SC to furnish details to RTI applicant S C Agrawal of the correspondence between the CJI and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the incident in the court in Chennai when the judge had alleged that a Union minister had tried to influence him in a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to a person. The common questions of law raised by the SC CPIO in both the appeals: * Whether the RTI applicant has a right to information relating to appointment of judges under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act * Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by `strangers and busybodies' Sarbajit
