Delhi HC Sets Aside CIC Order, Says RTI Cannot Force Court To Compile Judge-Wise List Of Judgments Delivered Over Two Months After Hearing

The respondent, a former judicial officer, sought details of cases heard by a particular Judge in which judgment was delivered more than two months after arguments concluded.

The PIO replied that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled, and the First Appellate Authority upheld that response.

On second appeal, the CIC directed the PIO to locate and provide relevant monthly reports, or a cumulative list, for a two-year period.

It reasoned that such information should be available because Court Masters furnished monthly lists to the Chief Justice.

The PIO challenged that direction, maintaining that the information was not held by any functionary of the Court.

Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 confer access to information that exists and is held by or under the control of a public authority.

In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Supreme Court held that the Act does not require a public authority to collect or collate information that is not part of its records and is not required to be maintained.

The Division Bench in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, LPA 24/2015, decided 7 January 2016, likewise held that the RTI Act does not authorize a direction requiring a public authority to collate information in the form sought.

The directions in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318, and the resulting High Court office order required monthly lists of reserved judgments to be sent in sealed covers to the Chief Justice for administrative attention; they did not require the lists to be preserved or compiled Judge-wise.

The office order required Court Masters to furnish monthly lists in sealed covers so the Chief Justice could draw the concerned Bench’s attention to pending matters; it did not require those lists to be preserved year after year or compiled by Judge.

The CIC’s conclusion that the information “should be available” was therefore an assumption, not evidence that the requested records were held by the Court.

Producing the requested information would require examining cases heard by the Judge, calculating the time between conclusion of arguments and delivery of judgment, and preparing a new list.

That would be the collection and collation of information not required by the RTI Act, and limiting the search to two years would not alter its character.

It allowed the petition and set aside the CIC’s order dated 26 May 2011; any pending applications were also disposed of.