The demand for Justice Sikri data
The applicant had asked for a compiled account of matters where judgment was reserved and then not delivered within two months during Justice Sikri's tenure. The Commission accepted that framing and told the registry to furnish the details. That meant going back through case records, picking out the relevant matters, applying the two-month test, and producing a fresh statement of results. An applicant sees that as a straight question deserving a straight answer. A registry faces file-by-file work — checking dates of reserving and pronouncing across benches and years, deciding what counts as a reserved matter, then building a list that did not exist before. The High Court said that last step took the request outside the Act.
RTI means existing records only
His reasoning was short and practical. The RTI Act lets citizens see what the state holds. It does not make the state research, analyse or assemble answers. If a file, register, database or report already holds the information, it must be shared subject to the Act's exemptions. If no such record is maintained, the authority need not start one for a query. High Courts keep cause lists, daily orders, judgment records, filing numbers and administrative files. They don't keep a ready reckoner of reserved-versus-delivered time per judge, let alone a historical chart for a former judge's tenure. Producing that would take fresh labour and fresh calls on method. Disclosure, the Court said, means opening the store. It doesn't mean manufacturing a new product.
Delay issue stays, RTI not audit
Waiting months after final arguments carries a real cost. Parties can't plan, lawyers can't advise with certainty, and trial court decrees, bail, service, property and commercial questions stay in limbo. Justice Mahajan accepted the public interest in timely judgments. He separated two ideas applicants often merge. Whether delay needs debate and reform is one question. The answer is yes. Whether the RTI Act can be used to audit that delay judge by judge, where no compiled record exists, is another. The answer is no. If every concern about performance forced a public office to build new datasets from raw files, requests would turn into research commissions with open-ended time and cost.
What the registry actually keeps
A particular case is usually traceable in the High Court. The daily cause list shows when a matter was listed for judgment. The order sheet shows when arguments closed and judgment was reserved. The judgment itself carries the pronouncement date. Certified copies, inspection of records and the court's website carry much of this for decided cases. What is missing is a consolidated report that does the comparison for you. There is no standing register titled judgments delayed beyond two months. There is no administrative duty to tag every reserved matter with a countdown clock and preserve that tag after the judge retires or is elevated. A request for a judge-wise delay list asks for analysis, not a document. The order says public information officers can say so instead of manufacturing the list.
Ask for documents, not lists
Stick to records that exist and RTI still works around court functioning. Ask for a copy of a specific order sheet, a specific judgment with its dates, or the statistical reports the registry already publishes. Ask whether a particular circular on timely pronouncement exists and seek its copy. Ask for inspection of a defined file. Those target existing material and are harder to refuse on the ground used here. What tends to fail is the sweeping call to cull through years of dockets and return a conclusion. Phrases like give me all cases where, prepare a list of, or tell me how many matters of Justice X were delayed invite the objection that no such compilation is maintained. That is what happened here. Narrow the ask to a document. Do the counting and comparison yourself once you have it. You'll get more, faster, with fewer appeals.
What litigants can still do
A litigant waiting after arguments close loses one route, not every route. You can't compel the registry through RTI to certify delay across a judge's docket. You can still track your own case through its order sheets and listing history. You can mention the matter for early pronouncement through counsel, seek a certified copy of the reserving order, and keep a dated paper trail. In fit cases, counsel can flag delay on the judicial side rather than through an information request on the administrative side. The Commission's direction to compile and disclose the two-month data for Justice Sikri goes, and no fresh compilation exercise is required under that order.
