Right to Information Wiki
Judicial RTI — what citizens can and cannot get from courts in 2026

RTI on judicial records — what is and isn't disclosable. The Gandaiah-Bandopadhyay-CJI 2019 trilogy and where the line sits in 2026.

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

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

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

The trilogy

  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).

What is disclosable today

  • 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.

What is not disclosable

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

Practical drafting for judicial RTI

  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.

High Court RTI

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

Sources

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

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.

, , , , , ,