The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court to locate and disclose details of cases in which judgments were reserved but not pronounced within two months.Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the CIC could not direct the PIO to locate such information merely on the assumption that it “should...
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court to locate and disclose details of cases in which judgments were reserved but not pronounced within two months.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the CIC could not direct the PIO to locate such information merely on the assumption that it “should be available” with the Court Masters or the office of the Chief Justice.
The Court passed the order on October 29 while allowing a petition filed by the PIO challenging the CIC's May 26, 2011 order.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by former judicial officer P.D. Gupta in April 2009. Gupta had sought details of all cases heard by then Justice A.K. Sikri, either sitting singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
Gupta had referred to his own case, in which arguments were heard on July 31, 2007, but the judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008.
The PIO initially informed Gupta that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled. The First Appellate Authority upheld the response.
However, the CIC, while allowing Gupta's second appeal, directed the PIO to locate relevant records, including monthly reports furnished by Court Masters to the Chief Justice through the Registrar, and provide copies of the relevant lists.
The CIC had limited the information to two years preceding the RTI application, observing that compiling the entire data concerning Justice Sikri's tenure would be an impossible exercise and disproportionately divert the public authority's resources.
Before the High Court, the PIO argued that the information sought was neither maintained nor compiled by any functionary of the Court. It was also contended that the monthly reports were furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and held in a fiduciary capacity.
Justice Mahajan noted that the Delhi High Court's office order dated April 4, 2003, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, required Court Masters to furnish monthly lists of cases where judgments had been reserved but not pronounced during the month.
The lists were to be submitted in a sealed cover to the Registrar (Administration-Judicial) for being placed before the Chief Justice.
The Court clarified that neither the Supreme Court's directions in Anil Rai nor the High Court's office order required the lists to be preserved or compiled judge-wise.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Court reiterated that the RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing with a public authority.
It observed that where the information sought is not part of the records and is not required to be maintained under any law, the public authority is not obliged to collect or collate such information.
The Court further relied on the Delhi High Court Division Bench's decision in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, which held that the RTI Act does not empower authorities to collate information in the manner sought by an applicant.
Justice Mahajan observed that furnishing the information sought by Gupta would require the PIO to examine records of all cases heard by a particular judge, calculate the time taken in each case and prepare a fresh list.
“This would amount to collecting and collating information,” the Court observed, adding that the RTI Act does not oblige a public authority to undertake such an exercise.
The Court also noted that restricting the information to a period of two years would not alter the nature of the exercise.
While acknowledging that timely delivery of judgments is a matter of public concern, the Court held that public interest cannot be invoked to compel a public authority to create information that is not held by it.
“Considering the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is accordingly allowed,” the Court held, setting aside the CIC's order dated May 26, 2011.