RTI| Public Authority Can’t Be Compelled To Create Information: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Directing High Court To Provide List Of Delayed Judgments
The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the High Court to provide information regarding cases wherein judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two months.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby the petitioner was directed to locate the information about the cases wherein judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two months.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “This Court is mindful that while timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly a matter of public concern, the consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists. The same cannot be used to compel a public authority to create information which is not held by it.”
Advocate Priyam Mehta represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The respondent is a former judicial officer. On April 2, 2009, the respondent applied to the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). In query, the respondent stated that in a Writ Petition, filed by him against the Court, arguments were heard by a Division Bench presided over by Justice A.K. Sikri. The respondent sought complete details of all the cases heard by the Judge, sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
When no reply was received within thirty days, the respondent filed a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Thereafter, the PIO replied that such data was specifically maintained and compiled. The respondent later alleged that the information had been deliberately withheld and “may be readily available” with the Court Master or Private Secretary of the Judge, the Registrar(Admn.-Judicial) and the office of the Chief Justice. The First Appellate Authority passed an order finding no infirmity in the reply of the PIO, as no such data was maintained, and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a Second Appeal before the CIC, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench reiterated that the RTI Act provides access only to such information as is available and existing with the public authority. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).
The Bench noted that furnishing the information sought by the respondent would require the petitioner to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list. “This would amount to collecting and collating information, which, as held in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), the public authority is not obliged to do. The learned CIC itself noted that such an exercise would be impossible”, it stated.
The Bench held that the CIC in the impugned order proceeded merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to the Chief Justice. “A direction under the RTI Act cannot be issued on such an assumption. Such practice does not, by itself, mean that the lists are preserved year after year”, it added.
Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Public Information Officer v. P.D. Gupta (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9686)