New Delhi: Noting that a public authority can’t be compelled to generate information that it doesn’t have in its records, Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing disclosure of information on cases in which judgments were reserved but not pronounced within two months by a former high court judge.
The high court clarified that a public authority is not obliged to collect and collate or generate information, since concerns of public interest cannot compel the creation of information which is not maintained.
In 2009, a former judicial officer, PD Gupta, had sought via an RTI plea complete details of all cases heard by Justice AK Sikri, then a high court judge, in which the judgment was delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments. The high court observed that the office order only required the court masters to furnish the monthly lists to be placed before the Chief Justice so that the attention of the bench might be drawn to the pending matters, and neither the top court’s guidelines nor the office order requires the lists to be preserved or compiled judge-wise.
Restricting the period to two years does not change the nature of the exercise, the court said, while adding that the CIC order proceeded on a “presumption” that the information “should be available”. The PIO had informed him that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled, declining the plea. The first appellate authority also upheld the response of the PIO but the CIC, allowing Gupta’s second appeal, directed the PIO to locate relevant records, including monthly reports submitted by court masters to the Chief Justice through the registrar, and provide copies of the relevant lists. The CIC had limited the information to a two-year period preceding the RTI application, observing that compiling the entire history of judgments reserved by the judge would disproportionately divert the public authority’s resources. Justice Sikri retired as a judge of the Supreme Court .