The Delhi High Court has held that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, does not require public authorities to collect, compile or create information that is not already maintained in their records. Setting aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Court clarified that information about judgments reserved for more than two months cannot be demanded in a newly prepared format when no such compiled record exists.
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the judgment on October 29, 2026, while allowing a petition filed by the Public Information Officer (PIO) against an order passed by the CIC on May 26, 2011.
Background
The dispute arose from an RTI application filed on April 2, 2009, by P.D. Gupta, a former judicial officer. He sought details of cases heard by a particular Delhi High Court judge, either sitting singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were pronounced more than two months after arguments had concluded.
The request referred to his own case, W.P.(C) 2362/2002, in which arguments were heard on July 31, 2007, but the judgment was delivered on May 2, 2008.
The PIO initially did not respond within the prescribed 30-day period. On May 15, 2009, the officer informed Gupta that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled.
After his first appeal was rejected, Gupta approached the CIC.
On May 26, 2011, the CIC directed the PIO to locate relevant records, including monthly reports submitted by Court Masters to the Chief Justice through the Registrar, and provide copies within 15 working days.
The CIC considered that such information should be available because Court Masters regularly prepared lists of cases involving reserved judgments that had not been pronounced.
Challenging this direction, the PIO approached the Delhi High Court, maintaining that the information was neither maintained nor compiled by any functionary of the Court.
Justice Amit Mahajan examined Sections 2(f), 2(j) and 3 of the RTI Act and observed that the legislation provides access to information already available with or under the control of a public authority.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Court reiterated:
"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act."
The Court also examined the office order dated April 4, 2003, issued by the Registrar General following the Supreme Court's directions in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar.
It noted that Court Masters were required to submit monthly lists in sealed covers to the Registrar (Administration-Judicial) for placing before the Chief Justice. However, these lists were intended to draw attention to pending matters and were not required to be preserved or compiled judge-wise.
The Court further observed that preparing the information sought by Gupta would require examining numerous case records, calculating the time taken in each matter and creating a fresh list. The RTI Act does not impose such an obligation on public authorities.
The Court clarified that public interest in timely delivery of judgments cannot be used to compel an authority to create information that it does not hold.
Accordingly, Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the petition filed by the Public Information Officer and set aside the CIC's order dated May 26, 2011.
Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
