Table of Contents
Judicial pendency data under RTI — Supreme Court 2024
Supreme Court of India · 2024-05-10 · (2024) 5 SCC 512 · ★ Landmark
Aggregate pendency is public; judicial deliberation is not.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2024-05-10 |
| Citation | (2024) 5 SCC 512 |
| Bench | C, h, a, n, d, r, a, c, h, u, d, , C, J, ,, , J, ., B, ., , P, a, r, d, i, w, a, l, a, ,, , M, a, n, o, j, , M, i, s, r, a, , J, J |
| Petitioner | In Re: Judicial Transparency (SC, 2024) |
| Respondent | |
| RTI Act sections | §4(1)(b), §8(1)(b) |
| Outcome | partly allowed |
Outcome
Court-wise pendency data is disclosable under §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure; individual judicial notings remain exempt under §8(1)(b).
Ratio decidendi
Aggregate docket-level pendency data (by court, by age-band, by subject) falls squarely within the §4(1)(b)(xii) duty of proactive disclosure. It does not attract §8(1)(b) because it is not the internal deliberative work of a judge. Case-specific notings by a judge remain within §8(1)(b).
Keywords
pendency, section 4(1)(b), section 8(1)(b), proactive disclosure, judicial data
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.
- Judicial-delay records — SC (SC 2023)
- Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC (CIC 2018)
- Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC (CIC 2020)
- Namit Sharma v. Union of India (SC 2012)
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 · last reviewed 21 April 2026.
Discussion