Public Information Officer vs P.D.Gupta

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 29 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011468472011
+ W.P.(C) 7340/2011
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocate.
versus
P.D.GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“i. Call for record & proceedings of the entire case in Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM and Quash/set aside the Order dated
26.05.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM filed by Shri PD
Gupta/Respondent;”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner assails the order dated
26.05.2011 (hereafter ‘impugned order’ ) passed by the Central
Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’ ), whereby the petitioner
was directed to locate the information pertaining to the cases wherein
judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two
months.
3. The respondent is a former judicial officer. On 02.04.2009, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

respondent applied to the Public Information Officer (hereafter
referred to as ‘PIO’ ) under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereafter ‘RTI Act’ ) vide Diary No. 115/09. In query 5(2), the
respondent stated that in W.P.(C) 2362/2002, filed by him against this
Court, arguments were heard on 31.07.2007 by a Division Bench
presided over by then Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, and the
judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2008. The respondent, therefore,
sought complete details of all the cases heard by the Hon’ble Judge,
sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered
more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
4. Since no reply was received within thirty days, the respondent
filed a first appeal on 12.05.2009 under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
Thereafter, the PIO replied on 15.05.2009 that “No such data is
specifically maintained and compiled. ”
5. By letter dated 29.05.2009 addressed to the First Appellate
Authority, the respondent alleged that the information had been
deliberately withheld and “may be readily available” with the Court
Master or Private Secretary of the learned Judge, the Registrar
(Admn.-Judicial) and the office of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The First
Appellate Authority by order dated 06.06.2009, found no infirmity in
the reply of the PIO, as no such data was maintained, and rejected the
appeal.
6. Aggrieved by the order of First Appellate Authority, the
respondent preferred a Second Appeal dated 13.07.2009 before the
learned CIC, wherein the respondent pressed only for the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

query. The petitioner had contended that, firstly, the information
sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being
furnished to the Hon’ble Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held
in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of
the RTI Act. The learned CIC rejected both contentions by observing
that, owing to the practice of Court Masters compiling such lists every
month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure
would serve a larger public interest. By order dated 26.05.2011, the
learned CIC noted:
“5. In the light of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to locate the
relevant records, such as the reports furnished by the Court Masters to the
Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar every month and to
provide photocopies of those reports containing the lists of cases relevant
to the RTI request of the Appellant within 15 working days from the
receipt of this order. Since the Appellant has not indicated a timeframe for
this information and the Respondents pointed out that Honourable Justice
Sikri had been in the High Court for a very long time and compiling
information about the reserved orders passed by him or benches in which
he had been a member judge would be impossible and would
disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, we think
that it would suffice if this information is provided for a period of two
years only preceding the date of the RTI application. However, if a
cumulative list of such pending reserved orders in the High Court is being
compiled anywhere in the High Court, including the office of the Chief
Justice, it would also suffice to provide a copy of that to the Appellant.”
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred
the present petition.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the impugned
order, all efforts were made to locate the information; however, the
same was not found to be held by any functionary of this Court.
9. This Court, by order dated 03.10.2011, issued notice and stayed
the operation of the impugned order. The respondent entered
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

appearance through counsel on 22.11.2011 and sought time to file a
counter affidavit; however, no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
The interim order was made absolute on 09.07.2012, and the petition
was admitted on 17.01.2013. None has appeared on behalf of the
respondent since then, including today.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RTI Act
provides access only to such information as is held by or under the
control of the public authority. She submits that the information
sought by the respondent, being a compilation of the judgments of a
specific Judge which were reserved but not delivered within two
months, is neither maintained nor compiled by the petitioner or by any
functionary of this Court.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record. Since none has appeared on behalf of the respondent, this
Court has also considered the stand taken by the respondent in his
second appeal before the learned CIC.
12. The principal controversy herein is whether the learned CIC
could have directed the petitioner to locate and furnish the information
sought, when the consistent stand of the petitioner is that no such
record is maintained or compiled.
13. Notably, Section 2(j) defines “right to information” as “the
right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or
under the control of any public authority”. Read with Sections 2(f)
and 3 of the RTI Act, the right extends only to information that
already exists and is held by the public authority. The relevant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

sections are encapsulated herein below:
“ (f) “information ” means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,
models, data material held in any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force;”
(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible
under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public
authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts
where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
3. Right to information . - Subject to the provisions of this Act all
citizens shall have the right to information.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar :
(2001) 7 SCC 318 laid down guidelines with respect to the time frame
during which the Courts, after reserving the orders, should pass
judgments.
15. Thereafter, the Registrar General of this Court issued an order
bearing No. 132/E-2/ESTT/DHC on 04.04.2003 in terms of the
directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, followed by
Corrigendum dated 07.04.2003, which states as under:
“2(ii) All the Court Masters are directed to furnish, in a sealed cover ,
every month the list of cases where the judgments are reserved and are
not pronounced within the period of that month and a list of cases where
judgments are pronounced during the month to the Registrar (Admn.-
Judicial) for being laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice.”
16. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil
Rai (supra) directed that such communication be conveyed “as
confidential and in a sealed cover” , only to enable the Chief Justice to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matters, and
not for being preserved or compiled for the public.
17. It is trite law that the RTI Act provides access only to such
information as is available and existing with the public authority. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v.
Aditya Bandopadhyay : (2011) 8 SCC 497 has held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about
the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is
available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3
and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under
clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any
information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or
statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the
exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is
not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such
information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules
or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation
upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available
information and then furnish it to an applicant .”
18. In W.P.(C) 6634/2011, titled The Registrar, Supreme Court of
India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors.: 2014:DHC:6701 , a
similar direction of the learned CIC regarding the cases wherein
judgments were reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was partly
upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the
Division Bench of this Court in The Registrar, Supreme Court of
India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra: LPA 24/2015, decided on
07.01.2016 , while relying upon Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), set
aside the said decision and held that the right to information under
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act extends only to the information held by the
public authority, and that there is no provision under the RTI Act
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate
the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.
19. In the present case, the Office Order dated 04.04.2003, as
modified by the Corrigendum dated 07.04.2003, only requires the
Court Masters to furnish the monthly lists in a ‘sealed cover’ for being
laid before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, so that the attention of the
Bench concerned may be drawn to the pending matters. Neither Anil
Rai (supra) nor the said Office Order requires the said lists to be
preserved or compiled Judge-wise. No law, rule or regulation
requiring the same has been shown.
20. A bare perusal of Anil Rai (supra) notes that it nowhere
directed that the sealed-cover lists are to be kept as a record or made
public. The lists were sent to Hon’ble the Chief Justice only so that
necessary administrative action could be taken on delayed matters.
Therefore, the stand of the respondent that the information is readily
available with the Court Masters or the office of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice cannot be accepted.
21. Moreover, 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 and would disproportionately divert the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12

resources of the public authority. Restricting the period to two years
does not change the nature of the exercise.
22. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has consistently
maintained, at every stage, that no such data is maintained or
compiled. The said stand, supported by the affidavit of the PIO, has
not been disputed by the respondent by way of any counter affidavit.
23. The learned CIC in the impugned order proceeds merely on the
premise that the information “should be available ” on account of the
practice of furnishing such lists to Hon’ble 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.
24. 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.
25. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is
accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 passed
by the learned CIC in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM is set
aside.
26. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12