$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2832/2026 and CM APPL. 13763-13764/2026 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .....Petitioner (Through: Mr.Shashank Bajpai CGSC, Mrs. Shakun Sudha Shukla, Mr.Gopi Chand, Ms. Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Mr. Govind Singh Chauhan, Mr. Ashutosh Kalia Assistant Registrar SCI, Mr. Tarun Maurya Sr. Court Assistant SCI, Ms. Ankita Zadoo Court Assistant SCI.)

versus HARSH KUMAR VASHISHT .....Respondent (Through: None.)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside and quashing the Impugned Order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the then Registrar-cum-First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act in favour of the Respondent, to the extent that such orders direct, permit or result in disclosure of examination-related information (including evaluated answer scripts, scaled marks, moderation data and related records) in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with the law.

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction reinstating the decision passed by the Petitioner.

c. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. T he petitioner vide the instant petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) directly before this Court without availing the statutory remedy under Section 19 of the RTI Act, which is available before the Central Information Commission („CIC‟).

3. The petitioner submits that the expression “any person” as it appears in Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, would exclude a “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Further, it is argued, that since it cannot file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, it also cannot prefer a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

4. The said argument does not even bear an iota of merit. A bare perusal of Section 19 of the RTI Act, would make the same, palpably obvious. The said provision is extracted as under:

“19. Appeal.

(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

…

(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission”

5. Section 19(1) of the Act deals with two categories of persons who are entitled to prefer a First Appeal. First, is a person who does not receive a decision within the stipulated time limit, and second, is any other “person” aggrieved by the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. While Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”, the word “person” has not been specifically defined.

6. There is no reason to interpret “person” in a manner such that it excludes “public authority”. While not argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only rationale that could possibly be given, is that since the information officer is a part of the public authority, which has provided the information, an appeal against the said decision would perhaps be hit by the rule of estoppel, or would amount to blowing hot and cold. However, under the scheme of the RTI Act, the information offic