Info Requiring Analysis Of Legal Proceedings Outside Purview Of RTI Act: Delhi HC Quashes Order To Inform On Ex-Parte Injunctions Given By ADJ

Setting aside CIC's order directing Patiala House Court PIO to furnish information on the number of cases in which a judge granted ex-parte injunction in relation to cases represented by a particular advocate and in suits filed by a particular company, the Delhi High Court observed such queries require an analysis of the relevant judicial proceedings.It further said that such an analysis sought for in the present case, falls under the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempts disclosure of information when such information does not exist or when it amounts to analyzing the information for the applicant which does not form part of any existing record. Justice Sachin Datta observed, "The RTI queries made by the respondent require an analysis of the relevant judicial proceedings to ascertain (i) the nature of the prayers sought and as to whether any injunctive relief has been sought; (ii) the nature of the order/s passed and whether the same tantamount to grant of an ex-parte injunction order; and (iii) analysis of judicial orders to ascertain whether the injunction orders have been vacated.”The court further said that such categorization "cannot be done without conducting a detailed analysis of the legal proceedings" in question and thus falls under the scope and ambit of Rule 7(vii) and (ix) framed under Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules. It further said, "such analysis is beyond the purview of “information” which can be supplied to an RTI applicant". The was considering a plea challenging an passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed in the conspectus of two Right to Information (RTI) applications submitted to the Chief Information Officer Patiala House District Courts for obtaining information in respect of the Court of an Additional District Judge (ADJ). The respondent sought information about the number of many cases the ADJ gave ex-parte injunction orders in cases represented by one advocate and in suits filed by one company. The information sought pertained to name and address of the parties against whom injunction order passed; Suit number and date of filing such suit; Date of passing ex party injunction orders; date of vacation of injunction orders and the date of passing of final orders where injunction is not vacated. The office of the Public Information Officer, Patiala House Courts denied the information sought by the respondent on the ground that fell under the purview of Section/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act. The respondent filed first appeal which was dismissed on the ground of exemption under Rule 7(vii) and (ix) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008. Rule 7 pertains to exemption from disclosure of information and states that "Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information officer may not provide the information to the applicant on the following grounds...(vii) The information is nonexistent and will be necessary to create it for supplying it to the applicant...(ix) The information amounts to analyzing the information for the applicant which does not form part of any existing record". The said rules exempt the disclosure of information which is either non-existent and requires to be necessarily created for being supplied or requires analysis of the information which does not form part of any existing records.Pursuant to this the respondent moved a second appeal before the CIC. The CIC while allowing the appeal directed Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought within 3 weeks. The Public Information Officer, Patiala House Courts thus filed the present petition against CIC's order.Before the high court the counsel appearing for PIO argued that the CIC's order gravely errs in directing the petitioner to “cull out” the requisite information since the data/records pertaining to the Court of the concerned ADJ are voluminous and require manual segregation from available data to collate the information sought by the petitioner. Further the information was RTI applications contravened the 2008 Rules but also beyond purview of the Act.On the information sought being outside the purview of the Act the court referred to its decision in Public Information Officer vs Mr. S.P Goyal (2019), where it was held that "information pertaining to judicial functions cannot be obtained through a RTI application since there is a clear dichotomy between the judicial and administrative functions of a court, wherein both are independent of each other and only the latter falls under the ambit of RTI". The court had therein also held that Delhi Court Rules will prevail over the RTI Act.The High Court thus in the present case held that the information sought by the respondent was beyond the purview of the RTI Act and set-aside the CIC's order. Case title: Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish LambaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134Click Here To Read/Download...

Info Requiring Analysis Of Legal Proceedings Outside Purview Of RTI Act: Delhi HC Quashes Order To Inform On Ex-Parte Injunctions Given By ADJ

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags