Delhi High Court quashes CIC order directing HC to provide data under RTI on delayed judgments

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) to locate and provide details of cases in which judgments were reserved but pronounced more than two months later [Public Information Officer v PD Gupta].

Justice Amit Mahajan allowed a 2011 petition filed by the PIO of the High Court against the CIC’s May 26, 2011, order. 

The Court observed that while timely delivery of judgments is 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,” the Court said. 

In the present case such information was not maintained by the High Court, and in order to provide the information sought, the public authority would have to examine records of all cases heard by a particular judge and prepare a fresh compilation, the Court noted.

The case arose from a Right to Information (RTI) application filed in 2009 by former judicial officer PD Gupta. 

He sought details of cases heard by then Delhi High Court Justice AK Sikri, either sitting as a single-judge or as part of a Division Bench, where judgments were delivered more than two months after arguments concluded. 

The PIO replied that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled. 

However, the CIC directed the PIO to locate monthly reports furnished by court masters regarding reserved judgments and provide the information for two years preceding the RTI application.

Justice Mahajan noted that monthly lists regarding reserved judgments were sent in sealed covers to the Chief Justice to enable administrative action on delayed matters. 

The Court added that these lists were not required to be preserved or compiled judge-wise. 

Providing the information sought would require the Court to examine records of all cases heard by a particular judge and prepare a fresh compilation, the Court said. 

It added that the RTI Act does not oblige a public authority to collect or collate information that is not maintained.

“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,” the High Court said. 

Advocate Priyam Mehta appeared for the petitioner, the Public Information Officer (PIO). 

[Read Order]