📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—cases:khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc [2026/07/10 01:50] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,judicial officer,reasoning,§2(f),information definition)&metatag-description=(Supreme Court, 4 Jan 2010: a judge's reasons for a decision are not information under RTI Section 2[f]; applicants can get only the material on record.)}}
 +
 +====== Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Supreme Court of India** · 2010-01-04 · (2010) 2 SCC 1 · AIR 2010 SC 615 · **★ Landmark**
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +//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 | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1355531/|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.//
 +
 +  * [[/cases/namit-sharma-v-uoi-2012-sc|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
 +  * [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
 +  * [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
 +  * [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
 +  * [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1355531/|Full judgment text on Indian Kanoon]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1|All landmark rulings]]
 +  * [[:cases:search|Full case-law search]]
 +  * [[:cases|Case-Law Database — overview]]
 +  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
 +  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
 +
 +<WRAP center round alert 95%>
 +**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.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +
 +
 +//Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.//
 +
 +{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2 landmark}}