While declining to interfere with the CIC order, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, said if the information sought related to third parties, their consent would be taken before such disclosure.
The court said that considerable time of over six years had elapsed since the 2011 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and since then Delhi Police has filed two closure reports in the FIR lodged by Bhushan and no further investigation has been started.
Delhi government additional standing counsel Naushad Ahmed Khan, appearing for the police, had argued that merely because the closure reports had been filed before a court, it does not mean that the investigation cannot be recommenced.
He had also said the reports have not been accepted by the trial court and the authorities concerned would always have the right to further investigate the matter and, thus the information as sought for by the respondent could not be provided.
More From This Section
It also said the information which is the subject matter of an investigation can be disclosed as long as the disclosure does not impede the probe.
In the CD conversation, Bhushan is allegedly telling Yadav and Singh that his son Prashant can "manage a judge".
After the CD came out, the senior lawyer had termed it as fake and fabricated and had denied having any conversation with the two politicians. He had also lodged an FIR.
The police sent the CD for forensic analysis and later claimed that it was genuine, without making public the report.
An RTI activist, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, had thereafter moved the CIC seeking directions to the Prime Minister's Office, Home Ministry and the forensic lab in Chandigarh to make public the forensic reports on the CD.
The CIC on November 14, 2011 had directed the police to make the forensic report public.
The High Court, which did not interfere with the CIC decision to make public the information sought, however put a caveat and said, "Further, if the third party(ies) do not consent for disclosure of such information, the Central Public Information Officer would have to take a decision whether the disclosure of such information is required in the larger public interest.