Judicial RTI — what citizens can and cannot get from courts in 2026

The Supreme Court's position on RTI to itself has evolved through three landmark rulings. Here's where it stands today.

1. Khanapuram Gandaiah (2010) — RTI cannot demand reasons for judicial decisions; reasoning is in the order itself.
2. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — examination answer-scripts are “information”; foundational disclosure principle.
3. CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2019) — CJI office is a “public authority”; disclosure subject to three-step test (motive, public interest, privacy).

• Court statistics, pendency, case-disposal data.
• Judicial appointments process (post-decisional).
• Asset declarations of judges (subject to test).
• Administrative side circulars and decisions.
• Court infrastructure spending.

• Judicial reasoning beyond the order — Gandaiah bar.
• Note files of collegium pre-decision.
• Identity of parties in sealed matters.
• Judges' personal financial records (full).

1. File to Registrar (Administrative), not the judge.
2. Frame as “administrative side” information.
3. Cite Bandopadhyay + 2019 CJI ruling for disclosure prima facie; rely on three-step test.
4. For pendency/listing, eCourts portal often suffices without RTI.

Most HCs have separate RTI rules; some have set higher fees (Delhi HC: Rs. 50). Check the specific HC website before filing.

1. Khanapuram Gandaiah (2010). Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011). CPIO Supreme Court v. SCA (2019).
2. Court rules of HCs.

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.