…to provide such information would entail the Court examining records of all cases heard by a particular judge and preparing a fresh compilation.”

The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Delhi High Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) to search for and disclose information of cases where judgments were reserved and pronounced at least two months later.

Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the appeal filed by the PIO of Delhi High Court challenging the May 26, 2011 order of the CIC.

“The timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. However, balancing of public interest is only required to be considered when the requested information is actually held by the public authority. The same cannot be used to urge or push the public authority to create information which is not held by it,” the Delhi High Court said.

“In the present case such information is not maintained by the Delhi High Court and in order to give effect to the request for information sought by the appellant would have to go through the records of all cases heard by a particular Judge and prepare a fresh compilation,” the Court added.

A PIO had filed the petition in 2011 challenging the order of the CIC which had directed the PIO to provide information sought by a former judicial officer PD Gupta in his RTI application filed in 2009.

PD Gupta had sought information of all cases where Delhi High Court Justice AK Sikri either as a single judge or as part of the Division Bench heard arguments and delivered the judgment after a period of two months or more from the date on which the matter was argued.

The PIO of Delhi HC had responded to the RTI application stating that no such compilation was specifically maintained.

Quashing the CIC order, the Delhi High Court said that CIC cannot direct a PIO to search and compile such information.

“The impugned order was passed by learned CIC simply on the premise that there must be such information since reserved judgments are compiled every month and furnished to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for administrative action to be taken in respect of cases where judgments have been delayed. This however is not a sufficient basis to arrive at the conclusion that since information is compiled every month, the same is preserved and maintained year after year,” Justice Mahajan said while allowing the plea.

“Further, the learned CIC in the impugned order proceeds merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to Hon’ble 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 High Court said.

Mr. Priyam Mehta, advocate appeared for the appellant PIO.