In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court to assail an order dated 26-05-2011 by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby the petitioner was directed to locate the information pertaining to the cases wherein the judgments had been reserved and not pronounced despite lapse of two months, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan
The respondent, a former judicial officer, applied to the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), on 02-04-2009. He stated that in a writ petition filed by him against this Court, arguments were heard on 31-07-2007 by a Division Bench presided over by then Justice A.K. Sikri, and the judgment was pronounced on 02-05-2008. Therefore, he sought complete details of all the cases heard by Justice A.K. Sikri, sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
After no reply within thirty days, the respondent filed a first appeal on 12-05-2009. The PIO replied on 15-05-2009 that no such data was specifically maintained and compiled. The First Appellate Authority found no infirmity in that reply and rejected the appeal on 06-06-2009. Subsequently, the respondent preferred a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission. The PIO contended that the information sought was not maintained, that the information was furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and held in a fiduciary capacity, and was thus exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
By an order dated 26-05-2011, the CIC rejected both contentions, observing that the information “should be available” owing to the practice of Court Masters compiling such lists every month, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. The CIC directed the CPIO to locate the relevant records and provide photocopies of the reports within 15 working days, limited to a period of two years preceding the date of the RTI application, or to provide a cumulative list if one was being compiled anywhere in the High Court. Aggrieved, the PIO filed the present petition. By an order dated 03-10-2011, the Court issued notice and stayed the impugned order.
The petitioner submitted that the RTI Act provided access only to such information as was held by or under the control of the public authority. It was averred that the information sought, being a compilation of the judgments of a specific Judge which were reserved but not delivered within two months, was neither maintained nor compiled by the petitioner or by any functionary of this Court. None appeared for the respondent, so the Court considered the stand taken by the respondent in his second appeal before the CIC, namely that the information was readily available with the Court Masters, the Registrar (Admn.-Judicial) or the office of the Chief Justice.
The Court referred to Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, wherein the Supreme Court directed for such communication to be conveyed “as confidential and in a sealed cover”, only to enable the Chief Justice to draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matters, and not for being preserved or compiled for the public. The Court stated that it is trite law that the RTI Act provides access only to such information as is available and existing with the public authority.
It was noted that the Office Order dated 04-04-2003, as modified by the Corrigendum dated 07-04-2003, required the Court Masters to furnish monthly lists in a sealed cover for being laid before the Chief Justice. The Court stated that no law, rule, or regulation required the said lists to be preserved or compiled. Hence, it was stated that the respondent’s contention that the information was readily available with the Court Masters or the Chief Justice’s office could not be accepted.
Further, the Court held that furnishing the information sought would require the PIO to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, calculate the time taken in each case, and prepare a fresh list, amounting to collecting and collating information, which the public authority was not obliged to do. The Court stated that the CIC itself had noted that such an exercise would be impossible and would disproportionately divert resources.
The Court also noted that the CIC had proceeded merely on the premise that the information “should be available”, and a direction under the RTI Act could not be issued on such an assumption, since the practice of furnishing lists to the Chief Justice did not mean the lists were preserved year after year. The Court said that it was mindful that timely delivery of judgments was a matter of public concern, but held that public interest arose only when the information existed and could not be used to compel a public authority to create information which was not held by it.
Thus, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
