Case at a Glance
A former judicial officer used the Right to Information Act to seek a list of all cases heard by a particular High Court judge in which judgment came more than two months after arguments ended. The High Court’s PIO said no such data was maintained, but the Central Information Commission in 2011 directed it to dig out Court Masters’ monthly reports. Fifteen years later, the Delhi High Court set aside the CIC order, holding that the RTI Act gives access only to existing information and cannot compel a public authority to create or collate it.
In 2009 the respondent, a former judicial officer, filed an RTI application with the Delhi High Court. His query sought details of all cases heard by a particular judge, sitting alone or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after arguments concluded. A Division Bench presided over by that judge had heard his own writ petition in July 2007 and pronounced judgment in May 2008. The PIO replied that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled, and the First Appellate Authority agreed.
On second appeal, the CIC on 26 May 2011 rejected the PIO’s stand, including a plea of fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) for sealed-cover material, and directed the CPIO to locate the Court Masters’ monthly reports and supply copies for two years before the RTI application, or any cumulative list if one existed. The High Court stayed that order in October 2011. The respondent sought time to file a counter affidavit but never did, and no one appeared for him at the final hearing.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Central Information Commission direct a public authority to locate and furnish information that it consistently says is neither maintained nor compiled?
Existing information versus information to be created
Justice Amit Mahajan read Sections 2(f), 2(j) and 3 of the RTI Act to mean that the right extends only to information held by or under the control of the public authority. He relied on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 08 SC CK 0084, (2011) 8 SCC 497, that the Act “provides access to all information that is available and existing” and does not require authorities to collect or collate non-available information, and on the Division Bench ruling in Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, (2016) 01 DEL CK 0277 (LPA 24/2015, decided 7 January 2016), which set aside a similar CIC direction.
The Court examined the practice of Court Masters sending monthly lists in sealed cover to the Chief Justice under a 2003 office order issued in the wake of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 08 SC CK 0023, (2001) 7 SCC 318. Neither required those lists to be preserved or compiled judge-wise, and no rule requiring it was shown. Producing the list would mean examining every case of the judge and calculating delays — an exercise the CIC itself recognised as disproportionate. The CIC had proceeded on the premise that the information “should be available”, but a direction cannot rest on such an assumption. While accepting that timely judgments matter, the Court held that “the consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The RTI Act covers only existing information held by or under the control of the public authority; it does not oblige the authority to create or compile information.
- No law or rule required the sealed-cover lists to be preserved year after year or compiled judge-wise, and the PIO’s sworn stand of non-availability went uncontested.
- Public interest cannot compel a public authority to create information that does not exist.
- The petition was allowed and the CIC’s order dated 26 May 2011 was set aside.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms the ‘existing information’ limit on RTI, applying Aditya Bandopadhyay to judicial administration.
- It addresses a recurring type of RTI request seeking compiled statistics on individual judges.
- It shows the weight given to an uncontested affidavit of non-availability.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For RTI Applicants
- Frame requests around records that actually exist, such as specific files or registers, rather than asking for compilations.
- If you claim records exist, be ready to show the rule or practice that requires them to be kept.
- Public interest helps only where the information is already held.
For PIOs and Counsel
- Support a non-availability stand with an affidavit describing the search made.
- Distinguish between providing existing records and being asked to analyse or collate them.
- Cite Aditya Bandopadhyay and Lokesh K. Batra against directions to create information.
Key Takeaways
- RTI gives access to information that exists; it is not a tool to commission new compilations.
- Sealed-cover lists sent to the Chief Justice on pending matters are not shown to be preserved or judge-wise.
- The CIC cannot direct disclosure on the assumption that information ‘should be available’.
- Respondents who do not contest a PIO’s affidavit leave its stand unrebutted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use RTI to get statistics on how long a judge takes to deliver judgments?
Only if such data already exists in the court’s records. Here, the Delhi High Court held that no judge-wise compilation was maintained and the RTI Act cannot compel the court to prepare one.
What did the CIC originally order?
In 2011 the CIC directed the CPIO to locate the Court Masters’ monthly reports and provide copies for two years before the RTI application, or any cumulative list if it existed.
Does public interest change the answer?
No. The Court accepted that timely judgments are a matter of public interest but held that public interest arises only when the information exists.
Conclusion
After fifteen years, the Delhi High Court has drawn a clear line: the RTI Act opens existing records, but it does not oblige a public authority — including a court — to create new datasets on demand. The ruling rests squarely on Aditya Bandopadhyay and the Division Bench decision in Lokesh K. Batra.
Practical takeaway: Ask for specific existing records rather than analysed compilations, and if you assert that records exist, identify the rule or practice under which they are kept.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com