Supreme Court of India · 2010-01-04 · (2010) 2 SCC 1 · AIR 2010 SC 615 · ★ Landmark
Judicial reasoning is not 'information'; a PIO cannot be compelled to explain a judge's thought process.
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2010-01-04 |
| Citation | (2010) 2 SCC 1 · AIR 2010 SC 615 · (2010) 1 SCALE 124 |
| Case number | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009 |
| Bench | K.G. Balakrishnan (CJI), Dr. B.S. Chauhan |
| Petitioner | Khanapuram Gandaiah |
| Respondent | Administrative Officer & Ors. |
| RTI Act sections | §2(f), §2(j), §6 |
| Outcome | SLP dismissed |
| Full text | Indian Kanoon — Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors, 4 January 2010 |
The petitioner, a party to civil litigation over land, filed an RTI application asking why the judicial officers concerned had passed certain orders against him. The application, both appeals, and a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court all failed. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the reasons or thought process of a judge in arriving at a decision are NOT 'information' under §2(f); an applicant is entitled only to the material on record.
Under §2(f) and §2(j), a public authority must provide only information that is recorded and held — “it does not include the thinking process which transpired within the mind of the judge while passing the order.” As the Court put it: “A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him… No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision.” A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion; a PIO cannot be asked to furnish those reasons under the RTI Act.
judicial officer, reasoning, §2(f), information definition
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.