Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act concerning judicial proceedings. The case involved the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Patiala House Courts and respondent Harish Lamba. The respondent had filed RTI applications seeking detailed information about ex-parte injunctions granted by a specific Additional District Judge (ADJ) in cases represented by a particular advocate and in suits filed by a specific company. The Central Information Commission (CIC) had previously directed the PIO to furnish the requested information, leading to the present writ petition challenging that order.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The PIO, representing the petitioner, contended that the information sought required an extensive analysis of judicial records. They argued that compiling such data would necessitate:

• Examining the nature of prayers in each case to determine if injunctive relief was sought.
• Assessing whether the orders passed constituted ex-parte injunctions.
• Analyzing judicial orders to ascertain if and when such injunctions were vacated.

The petitioner emphasized that this process would involve creating new information, as the specific data requested did not exist in a compiled form. They invoked Rule 7(vii) and (ix) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempt disclosure when:

The information is non-existent and would need to be created.

Providing the information would require analyzing data not part of any existing record.

Furthermore, the petitioner referenced Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or information available in a fiduciary relationship, unless a larger public interest warrants disclosure.

Respondent’s Arguments:

Harish Lamba, the respondent, argued that the information sought pertained to the judicial functioning of the court and should be accessible under the RTI Act. He contended that transparency in judicial proceedings is paramount and that the data requested would shed light on the patterns of ex-parte injunctions granted by the concerned ADJ, potentially revealing biases or irregularities.

The respondent further argued that the information did not fall under the exemptions cited by the petitioner, as it pertained to the official duties of the judge and did not involve any commercial confidence or fiduciary relationships.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sachin Datta presided over the case and delivered the judgment. The court observed that the RTI queries required an in-depth analysis of judicial proceedings, which would involve:

• Determining the nature of prayers in each case.
• Assessing whether ex-parte injunctions were granted.
• Analyzing orders to see if and when injunctions were vacated.

The court held that such an analysis would necessitate creating new information, as the specific data requested was not maintained in the manner sought by the respondent. This process would fall under the exemptions provided in Rule 7(vii) and (ix) of the 2008 Rules, which state that information may not be provided if:

The information is non-existent and would need to be created.

Providing the information would require analyzing data not part of any existing record.

The court further referenced its decision in Public Information Officer vs. S.P. Goyal (2019), where it was held that information pertaining to judicial functions cannot be obtained through an RTI application, as there is a clear distinction between the judicial and administrative functions of a court. Only the latter falls under the ambit of the RTI Act.

In conclusion, the court set aside the CIC’s order directing the PIO to furnish the information and held that the information sought was beyond the purview of the RTI Act. The writ petition was allowed, and the CIC’s order was quashed.