Delhi High Court quashes CIC order seeking delayed judgment data

The Delhi High Court set aside a CIC direction to disclose delayed-judgment details concerning Justice A K Sikri. The ruling affirms that public authorities need not create or compile records unavailable under the RTI Act.

In Short

• Former judicial officer P D Gupta filed the RTI application in 2009
• Monthly sealed lists were intended solely for administrative review by chief justice
• Neither judicial guidelines nor office orders mandated preserving judge-wise delay records

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission order directing the disclosure of details of cases in which judgments were reserved but not delivered within two months by its former judge, Justice A K Sikri, news agency Press Trust of India reported.

Justice Amit Mahajan, in a judgment delivered on October 29, said timely delivery of judgments was a matter of public concern, but the Right to Information Act provided access only to information available with a public authority. A public authority could not be required to collect or compile information that it did not maintain, the court said.

Former judicial officer P D Gupta had filed an RTI application in 2009, seeking complete details of all cases heard by Justice Sikri, either singly or as part of a division bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after arguments concluded.

The Public Information Officer challenged the CIC's May 2011 order, which directed the disclosure of the information sought by Gupta for the two years preceding the RTI application. The officer argued that the High Court's functionaries did not maintain such data.

The court noted that the Supreme Court had issued guidelines on the timeframe for courts to deliver judgments. Following these guidelines, the High Court's registrar general had in 2003 directed all court masters to prepare monthly lists, in sealed covers, of cases in which judgments had been reserved but not delivered by the respective benches.

However, the office order only required these monthly lists to be placed before the chief justice so that the attention of the bench concerned could be drawn to pending matters. Neither the Supreme Court's guidelines nor the office order required the lists to be preserved or compiled judge-wise, the High Court said.

“The lists were sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice only so that necessary administrative action could be taken on delayed matters. Therefore, the stand of the respondent that the information is readily available with the Court Masters or the office of Hon'ble the Chief Justice cannot be accepted,” the court observed.

“It is trite law that the RTI Act provides access only to such information as is available and existing with the public authority... 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,” it added.

According to PTI, the court also said the RTI request would require an examination of the records of all cases heard by Justice Sikri. It found that such an exercise was impossible and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Restricting the request to two years would not change the nature of the exercise, it said, adding that the CIC order was based on a “presumption” that the information should be available.

Justice Sikri was appointed a Delhi High Court judge in July 1999 and elevated as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2012. He retired as a Supreme Court judge in 2019.

Setting aside the CIC order, the Delhi High Court held that the RTI Act could not be used to require a public authority to create or compile information it did not maintain, even when the subject involved public interest.

- Ends