Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer
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.
Case details
| 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 |
Outcome
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.
Ratio decidendi
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.
Keywords
judicial officer, reasoning, §2(f), information definition
Similar cases in the corpus
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.
- Namit Sharma v. Union of India (SC 2012)
- Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC (CIC 2020)
- Own APAR and service-book access (SC 2022)
- Union of India v. R. Jayachandran (SC 2017)
Related
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.
Reader signal
Was this article useful?
Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.