“The consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists,” the Delhi High Court has held, setting aside a 2011 CIC Order On Delayed Judgments that told its Public Information Officer to dig out data on verdicts pronounced more than two months after arguments.
New Delhi: An order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated May 26, 2011, which directed the High Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) to locate monthly reports of court masters and supply lists of cases in which judgments were reserved but not pronounced within two months, has been quashed, the Court holding that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not require a public authority to collect or collate information that it does not maintain [Public Information Officer v. P.D. Gupta].
The writ petition, filed by the PIO in 2011, was allowed by Justice Amit Mahajan, who delivered the oral judgment on October 29, 2026. No one appeared for the respondent.
Public interest needs something to disclose
The High Court accepted that prompt delivery of judgments is a matter of public concern, but it drew a line on what the RTI Act can be used for:
“This Court is mindful that while timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly 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 also noted that the PIO had consistently said, on affidavit, that no such data is maintained, and that no counter affidavit ever contested that stand.
An RTI application from 2009
The respondent, P.D. Gupta, a former judicial officer, filed his RTI application on April 2, 2009. In W.P.(C) 2362/2002, which he had filed against the High Court, arguments were heard on July 31, 2007 by a Division Bench presided over by then Justice A.K. Sikri, and judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008. He asked for complete details of every case heard by the judge, sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after arguments ended.
On May 15, 2009 the PIO replied that “No such data is specifically maintained and compiled.” The First Appellate Authority upheld that reply on June 6, 2009. Before the CIC, the PIO argued that the information was not maintained and that the monthly lists were sent to the Chief Justice in sealed cover and held in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e).
The CIC turned down both pleas. Reasoning that the information “should be available” because court masters compiled such lists every month, it directed the PIO to provide photocopies of the relevant reports for the two years preceding the RTI application. The High Court stayed that order on October 3, 2011.
Sealed covers for the Chief Justice, not a public record
Justice Mahajan traced the practice to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 and to a Registrar General office order of April 4, 2003, under which court masters furnish monthly lists of reserved and pronounced judgments in sealed cover to be laid before the Chief Justice. Neither Anil Rai nor the office order, the Court held, requires those lists to be preserved or compiled judge-wise, and no law, rule or regulation to that effect was shown. The lists were sent only so that administrative action could be taken on delayed matters.
Relying on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 and the Division Bench ruling in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (LPA 24/2015), the Court said that answering the query would mean examining every case heard by a particular judge, calculating the time taken in each and preparing a fresh list:
“This would amount to collecting and collating information, which, as held in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), the public authority is not obliged to do. The learned CIC itself noted that such an exercise would be impossible and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Restricting the period to two years does not change the nature of the exercise.”
“Should be available” is not enough
The Court found fault with the CIC’s reasoning, which rested on one premise:
“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.”
With that, the petition was allowed and the CIC order in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM was set aside.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a settled limit on the RTI Act: the right under Sections 2(f), 2(j) and 3 extends only to information that already exists and is held by or under the control of a public authority. An applicant cannot use the Act to make an authority research its records and build a new compilation in the form the applicant wants, and an information commission cannot order disclosure on the assumption that records “should” exist.
It also clarifies the status of the sealed-cover reserved-judgment lists created after Anil Rai. They are an internal administrative tool for the Chief Justice to monitor delays, not a register the High Court must preserve or disclose judge-wise. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that timely delivery of judgments remains a matter of public concern, a theme the Supreme Court has repeatedly pressed on High Courts.
Case Title: Public Information Officer v. P.D. Gupta [W.P.(C) 7340/2011; CNR No. DLHC011468472011]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate Priyam Mehta
For the Respondent: None