The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 3rd
November 2026.
The court set aside a Central Information Commission's order directing the Public Information Officer to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.
The Delhi High Court has
set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public
Information Officer (PIO) to disclose details of cases heard by former judge
Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within
two months.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while timely delivery of judgments is important, public interest cannot compel a public authority to create information it does not hold.
“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 order dated October 29 read.
RTI application
The case concerns an RTI application filed in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta, who sought details of cases heard by then Delhi High Court judge Justice A K Sikri, either singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
The judicial officer had pointed out that arguments in a case filed by him against the Delhi High Court were heard on July 31, 2007, and the judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008. He therefore sought similar details of all cases heard by Justice Sikri during the relevant period.
Since no reply was
received within thirty days, the officer filed a first appeal. Thereafter, the
PIO informed the judicial officer that no such data was specifically maintained
or compiled.
After the first appeal was rejected, the judicial officer approached the CIC. The PIO had argued that, firstly, the information sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both the arguments by observing that, owing to the practice of court masters compiling such lists every month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. Challenging the order, the PIO approached the high court.
The court observed that furnishing the information would require the PIO to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list which would amount to collecting and collating information, which, the public authority is not obliged to do.
The court took note of PIO’s stand that no such data is maintained or compiled as required by the judicial officer. “The said stand, supported by the affidavit of the PIO, has not been disputed by the respondent by way of any counter affidavit,” the court said.
The court found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to 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,” the court said.
It therefore allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by CIC.
(Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism.)
The court set aside a Central Information Commission's order directing the Public Information Officer to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.
 |
The Delhi High Court set
aside the CIC's disclosure order. (Image generated using AI) |
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while timely delivery of judgments is important, public interest cannot compel a public authority to create information it does not hold.
“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 order dated October 29 read.
RTI application
The case concerns an RTI application filed in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta, who sought details of cases heard by then Delhi High Court judge Justice A K Sikri, either singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
The judicial officer had pointed out that arguments in a case filed by him against the Delhi High Court were heard on July 31, 2007, and the judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008. He therefore sought similar details of all cases heard by Justice Sikri during the relevant period.
 |
Justice Amit Mahajan found
that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information
“should be available” on account of the practice of giving such lists to the
Chief Justice. |
After the first appeal was rejected, the judicial officer approached the CIC. The PIO had argued that, firstly, the information sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both the arguments by observing that, owing to the practice of court masters compiling such lists every month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. Challenging the order, the PIO approached the high court.
The court observed that furnishing the information would require the PIO to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list which would amount to collecting and collating information, which, the public authority is not obliged to do.
The court took note of PIO’s stand that no such data is maintained or compiled as required by the judicial officer. “The said stand, supported by the affidavit of the PIO, has not been disputed by the respondent by way of any counter affidavit,” the court said.
The court found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to 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,” the court said.
It therefore allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by CIC.
(Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
