The High Court of Delhi has set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that sought to compel the Public Information Officer (PIO) to locate and disclose specific data regarding reserved judgments that remained unpronounced for more than two months. The ruling, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan on October 29, 2026, reinforces the legal principle that public authorities are not obligated under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to create, collect, or collate information that is not already maintained within their official records.

The litigation originated from an RTI application filed in April 2009 by P.D. Gupta, a former judicial officer. Gupta sought a comprehensive list of all cases handled by former judge Justice A.K. Sikri, either sitting singly or in a Division Bench, where judgments were delivered more than two months after the arguments concluded. Gupta’s application was prompted by his personal experience in a separate matter where he contended that the time lapse between the hearing and the final judgment was excessive.

Assessing the Scope of Information Access

The PIO initially responded by stating that no such specific data or compiled list was maintained by the High Court. While the First Appellate Authority upheld this position, the CIC disagreed, directing the PIO to search for and provide photocopies of reports allegedly submitted by Court Masters to the Chief Justice on a monthly basis. The Commission further limited this mandate to a two-year period, operating under the assumption that such information "should be available" due to routine administrative practices.

In challenging the CIC order before the High Court , the petitioner maintained that the requested data was never compiled or preserved in the manner suggested by the Commission. The High Court found this argument compelling, noting that the existing administrative practices were designed solely for internal monitoring and did not constitute a public record . Justice Mahajan observed, "It is trite law that the RTI Act provides access only to such information as is available and existing with the public authority."

Limitations on Administrative Data Creation

The High Court’s ruling emphasizes that the Right to Information Act is not a tool for creating new information. To satisfy the respondent's request, the Court noted that the PIO would have to manually examine the records of every case heard by the specified judge, perform calculations to determine the delay in each instance, and subsequently compile a brand-new list.

Referring to established precedent, the Court held that a public authority is under no obligation to undertake such a burdensome task. The judgment clarified that even in cases involving significant public interest, such as the timely delivery of judicial verdicts, the law does not permit the compulsion of a public authority to generate data it does not possess. Addressing the Commission’s reliance on administrative reporting, the Court stated, “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.”

Impact on Judicial Transparency Requests

The Court’s decision aligns with the principle articulated in earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence, affirming that the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is restricted to material that exists in some form. The Court highlighted that the monthly lists previously submitted by Court Masters were intended only as confidential, sealed-cover communications to enable the Chief Justice to address pending matters administratively. Neither these lists nor the underlying case records were ever intended to be preserved as a public, judge-wise compilation of delays.

The petitioner’s consistent stand that such data was neither maintained nor compiled remained undisputed by the respondent throughout the proceedings. By granting the petition and quashing the CIC’s directive, the High Court has reaffirmed that transparency mandates are bound by the practicalities of record-keeping. As the Court underscored, while the timely delivery of judgments is a matter of legitimate public concern, this interest cannot override the statutory boundaries that prevent forcing an entity to curate or create records that do not exist.

The operative order concludes the decade-long dispute, effectively relieving the Public Information Officer of the duty to generate the requested data. With the CIC’s order vacated, the High Court has solidified the interpretation that the right to access information is strictly confined to records already in the possession or under the control of the public authority.