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.