The Delhi High Court has ruled that a public authority cannot be directed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to prepare fresh records merely because the information sought concerns a matter of public interest. The Court consequently quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) order requiring disclosure of details relating to delays in pronouncing judgements by former judge Justice A K Sikri.
In an order dated October 29, Justice Amit Mahajan held that the CIC could not presume the existence of information simply because similar records might have been prepared as part of an administrative practice.
The Court observed that responding to the RTI request would require examining individual case records, determining the time taken to pronounce judgements and compiling a new list. Such an exercise could not be imposed on a public authority when the requested information was not maintained in the specified form.
CIC Order Based on Assumption About Availability of Records
The dispute arose from an RTI application submitted in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta. He sought information about cases heard by Justice A K Sikri, either as a Single Judge or as a member of a Division Bench, in which judgements were pronounced more than two months after arguments concluded.
The CIC had directed disclosure after concluding that the information should be available because court masters followed a practice of preparing monthly lists. It also considered disclosure to be justified by larger public interest.
However, the High Court found that the existence of such a practice did not establish that the lists had been retained over successive years.
The Court held that the CIC could not issue directions under the RTI Act merely on an assumption that records should exist.
Public Interest Cannot Require Creation of New Information
Justice Mahajan acknowledged that delays in pronouncing judgements were a legitimate matter of public concern. However, the Court clarified that public interest could become relevant to disclosure only when the information actually existed.
The Court explained that providing the details sought by Gupta would involve scrutinising the records of every case heard by the particular judge, calculating the interval between the conclusion of arguments and delivery of the judgement, and compiling the results.
It held that the RTI Act did not oblige the public authority to undertake such collection and collation to generate information that was not already maintained.
The Court also relied on the Public Information Officer’s affidavit stating that the requested data was neither maintained nor compiled. Gupta had not challenged that assertion through a counter-affidavit.
Background of the RTI Dispute
Gupta’s application followed proceedings in a case he had filed against the Delhi High Court. Arguments in that matter concluded on July 31, 2007, while the judgement was pronounced on May 2, 2008.
Seeking comparable information about other matters heard by Justice Sikri, Gupta submitted his RTI application in April 2009.
After receiving no response within the prescribed thirty-day period, he filed a first appeal. The PIO subsequently informed him that the requested data was not specifically maintained or compiled.
Following the rejection of his first appeal, Gupta approached the CIC.
Before the Commission, the PIO maintained that the information was not available in the requested form. The PIO also argued that information submitted to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover was held in a fiduciary capacity and was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both objections and directed disclosure, prompting the PIO to challenge its decision before the High Court.
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court set aside the CIC order, holding that a direction to disclose information could not rest on an assumption about records that the public authority did not maintain.
