RTI for court case delay — filing template and framework (2026)

Suresh K. filed a civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement in the District Court at Pune in 2022. Four years on, the suit is still on the files. For the last six months it has not appeared on the daily cause list even though it was marked “ripe for hearing” after arguments closed. Every time Suresh asks the court master, he is told “date will come” or “judge on leave.” Three applications for early hearing have produced no written response.

Suresh is not alone. Across India, litigants watch their cases slip off the cause list for reasons no one will put in writing. The problem is rarely a single villain. It is usually a combination of three things the court's administrative wing knows but does not volunteer: a judge vacancy on that bench, adjournments granted without recorded reasons, and a listing algorithm that simply does not surface older files. These are administrative facts, held by the Registry, not by the judge on the bench.

That is the gap the Right to Information Act, 2005 closes. A court is a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(a) of the RTI Act — established by or under the Constitution — and its administrative records are disclosable just like any government department's. This guide shows you exactly which court records you can demand, which you must route through the court's own counter rules, and how to draft a tight, enforceable application that gets a written answer in 30 days.

The single most important thing to understand before you file is that court records split into two routes, and mixing them up is the most common reason court RTIs get rejected. The Supreme Court settled this split in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702 (decided 4 March 2020, Bench: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy).

Route 1 — Judicial side, through court rules, NOT RTI. Certified copies of orders, judgments, case-file documents, evidence, and the diary of proceedings in a case are obtained through the High Court's own Rules (for example, Rule 151 of the Gujarat HC Rules 1993, which requires a third party to file an affidavit stating reasons and pay the prescribed court fee). The Supreme Court held that the RTI Act “shall not be resorted to” for these judicial-side records. This is not because they are “exempt” — it is because the court rules provide a different, specific procedure, and that procedure is not inconsistent with the RTI Act, so the Section 22 non-obstante override does not bite. The same route was upheld for subordinate courts in M.P. Chothy v. Registrar General, High Court of Kerala (20 July 2022), which upheld Rule 12 of the RTI (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006.

Route 2 — Administrative side, through RTI. Records that are NOT about the substance of a particular case — judge vacancies, sanctioned versus working strength, court infrastructure, court fee schedules, listing/cause-list rules and administrative circulars, pendency statistics the court already maintains, and administrative file notings on rule-framing — remain accessible under the RTI rules framed by each High Court under Section 28. The CIC has held, for instance, that file notings on the Supreme Court Rules 2013 are not exempt because rule-framing is a legislative, not judicial, function (reported in The Hindu, August 2016).

To ask a sharp question, you need to know how a court's administrative wing actually works.

A District Court complex is run by the District Judge with a Court Manager / Registrar (Administration) handling the administrative side. Each High Court is run by the Chief Justice with a Registrar General and a Registrar (Administration) who is usually the designated CPIO. The Supreme Court's CPIO is an officer of the rank of Additional Registrar, situate at Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Listing of cases is governed by cause-list rules published by each court. These rules decide which cases appear on a given day, in what order, and before which bench. When a case “falls off” the list, the cause is recorded somewhere in the Registry — a judge on leave, a bench reconstitution, a part-heard matter held back, or simply the listing algorithm prioritising newer filings. That record is administrative.

Pendency statistics are maintained court-wise and case-type-wise on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) at https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in, operated by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court. The figures there are live and change daily — do not cite them as fixed numbers in your RTI; instead, ask the PIO for the already-maintained age-wise pendency buckets for your case type, which the Registry holds irrespective of the public dashboard.

One boundary the courts have drawn: RTI cannot compel a court to create new analytical data it does not already hold. The Delhi High Court in *Harish Lamba* (January 2025) cautioned against RTI applications that demand fresh compilations. So ask for records that already exist — listing registers, cause-list archives, vacancy returns, pendency buckets — not a bespoke report.

The legal foundation for filing RTI against a court was clinched by the Constitution Bench in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 (2019 INSC 1233, decided 13 November 2019, Bench: CJI Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, Sanjiv Khanna; judgment by Sanjiv Khanna, J.). The Bench held, by majority, that:

1. The Supreme Court is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, being established by/under Article 124 of the Constitution; High Courts are the same under Article 214.
2. The Chief Justice of India's office is not a separate public authority from the Supreme Court — they are one institution under Article 124.
3. Judicial independence is NOT a blanket exemption from the RTI Act. It is a factor in the public-interest balancing test under Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(2), not an automatic bar.
4. The same logic applies to the High Courts under Articles 214 and 216.

What this means in 2026 is that the old defensive line — “courts are special, you cannot RTI them” — is no longer good law. The two-route split from *CIC v. HC of Gujarat* tells you which records go by which door, but the door itself is open. The Supreme Court has not framed separate RTI Rules; the Registry follows the RTI Act, 2005 directly. The Supreme Court's earlier attempt to push applicants to Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was rejected by the Central Information Commission. Each High Court, however, has framed its own RTI Rules under Section 28, so check your HC's rules page for the exact fee and CPIO address.

Step 1 — Identify the right PIO.

1. District Court matters: the PIO designated by the District Judge — usually the Court Manager or Registrar (Administration) of that court complex.
2. High Court matters: the Registrar (Administration) or the designated CPIO of that High Court (each HC notifies its CPIO and First Appellate Authority under its own RTI rules).
3. Supreme Court matters: the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Step 2 — Frame administrative-side questions only. Five strong sample questions, each tied to a record the Registry actually holds:

1. “Furnish the date-wise reason for non-listing of Case No. _ (title _) on each date it was not taken up in the daily cause list during the period [start date] to [end date], as recorded in the listing register or administrative file.”
2. “Furnish the sanctioned versus working strength of judges in the [name] court complex as on [date], with the number of vacant posts and the date of vacancy for each.”
3. “Furnish the age-wise pendency of [case type, e.g. specific performance suits] in [name of court] as already maintained by the Registry, in the buckets of less than 1 year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years and above 5 years.”
4. “Furnish the number of adjournments granted in Case No. _ during the last 12 months and the recorded reason for each adjournment, date-wise.” - “Furnish the name and designation of the dealing court master / branch officer for Case No. _ and the designation and address of the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Step 3 — Pay the right fee the right way.

1. For the Supreme Court: Rs.10 by cash, Indian Postal Order, Money Order, or Demand Draft drawn in favour of “Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.” Court fee and cheques are NOT acceptable.
2. For High Courts and District Courts: Rs.10 (or the amount your State RTI Rules prescribe), by the modes notified in those rules. Check your HC's RTI rules page before filing.
3. You can also file online through the Central RTI portal (rtionline.gov.in) for the Supreme Court and pay by debit/credit card. The portal guides you through each field step by step, and our AI RTI Drafter can pre-fill the PIO, FAA and sample questions for your specific court: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html

Step 4 — Submit and keep proof. File by hand at the PIO's office and take a stamped receiving copy, or send by registered post and keep the acknowledgement, or file online and save the registration number. Proof of submission is your protection when the reply is delayed.

Step 5 — Wait 30 days. Under Section 7(1) the PIO must reply within 30 days (48 hours where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person). If third-party procedure under Section 11 is triggered, the limit extends to 40 days. If the PIO exceeds the limit, the information must be supplied free of charge under Section 7(6); day-31 non-reply is a deemed refusal and the trigger for your first appeal.

Step 6 — Use the citizen tools to track the case itself. Before and after filing, check your case status on the eCourts Services portal (https://services.ecourts.gov.in) by CNR number (the 16-digit alphanumeric on your court order), party name, case number, or FIR number. For SMS status, send `ECOURTS <CNR>` to 9766899899. The pendency dashboard at https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in shows live, court-wise figures. These tools are free and do not need an RTI — but they tell you exactly what is already public, so your RTI asks only for what is not.

1. A copy of the court's plaint / petition number page or the first order showing the CNR number, so the PIO can locate the file.
2. Proof of fee payment — the IPO counterfoil, DD photocopy, or online payment receipt.
3. Copies of any earlier applications for early hearing and the court's endorsements on them, to show you have already tried the in-court route.
4. A self-addressed stamped envelope if you want the reply by post (some State RTI Rules require this).

1. Asking for certified copies of orders via RTI. Per *CIC v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702*, judicial-side copies go through the court's own rules — apply at the court counter or use the eCourts “Orders and Judgments” download. RTI is for the administrative “why is it stuck” records. Cite Section 2(h) and the two-route split, not “judicial exemption.”
2. Demanding fresh analysis the Registry does not hold. The Delhi High Court in *Harish Lamba* (January 2025) held RTI cannot compel a court to create new analytical data. Ask for already-maintained registers and statistics, not a bespoke report.
3. Addressing the judge instead of the PIO. The Bench does not hold administrative records; the Registrar (Administration) does. Address the application to the CPIO by designation, not to the judge hearing your case.
4. Using the wrong fee or mode. The Supreme Court does not accept court fee stamps or cheques — only cash, IPO, MO or DD. State courts follow their own RTI Rules; filing with the wrong fee is the easiest way to get a rejection.
5. Missing the first-appeal window. If no reply arrives by day 30, file the first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days (extendable for sufficient cause). Waiting too long bars the second appeal.

1. First appeal — Section 19(1): to the First Appellate Authority (an officer senior in rank to the CPIO — for the Supreme Court, a Registrar; for HCs, the notified FAA). File within 30 days of the PIO's deadline. The FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days, extendable to 45 under Section 19(6). No fee under the Central Rules.
2. Second appeal — Section 19(3): to the Central Information Commission for Supreme Court matters, or your State Information Commission for High Court and District Court matters, within 90 days (extendable for sufficient cause). No fee under the Central Rules.
3. Complaint — Section 18: a direct complaint to the Information Commission is available where the PIO never replied at all or refused to accept the application.
4. Penalty — Section 20(1): the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day (maximum Rs.25,000) on the PIO for unreasonable refusal or delay, and under Section 20(2) recommend disciplinary action.

For court RTIs, the most common outcome is that the PIO replies with part of the information and routes the rest to the “judicial side” — which is your signal to file a first appeal arguing that the records you asked for are administrative, not judicial, and citing *CIC v. HC of Gujarat* and *Subhash Chandra Agarwal*.

To,
The Public Information Officer
[Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001
 / Registrar (Administration), High Court of ____
 / Court Manager, District Court, ____]

Subject: Application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Sir / Madam,

I am a party / counsel in Case No. _____ (titled _____ v. _____), CNR No. _____, pending in this Hon'ble Court. I seek the following information held by the administrative wing of the court:

1. The date-wise reason for non-listing of the above case on each date it was not taken up in the daily cause list during the period _____ to _____, as recorded in the listing register or administrative file.

2. The sanctioned versus working strength of judges in the _____ court complex as on _____, with the number of vacant posts and the date of vacancy for each.

3. The age-wise pendency of [case type] cases in the _____ court as already maintained by the Registry, in the buckets of less than 1 year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years and above 5 years.

4. The number of adjournments granted in the above case during the last 12 months and the recorded reason for each adjournment, date-wise.

5. The name and designation of the dealing court master / branch officer for the above case and the designation and address of the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

I state that the information sought is on the administrative side of the court and is not a request for certified copies of judicial records, which I understand are governed by the applicable Court Rules (see CIC v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702).

Fee of Rs.10 is remitted by [Indian Postal Order No. _____ / Demand Draft No. _____ / cash against receipt].

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Full address]
[Date]

No. Per *Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702*, certified copies of orders, judgments and case-file documents are on the judicial side and must be obtained through the court's own rules (apply at the court counter or download from the eCourts “Orders and Judgments” tab). RTI is for administrative records such as listing reasons, judge vacancies and pendency statistics.

Yes. The Constitution Bench in *CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481* held that the Supreme Court is a public authority under Section 2(h)(a) — established by Article 124 — and the High Courts are the same under Article 214. Judicial independence is a factor in the Section 8(1)(j) balancing test, not a blanket exemption.

The CPIO, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 — an officer of the rank of Additional Registrar. The First Appellate Authority is a Registrar of the Supreme Court. Use the designation and address, not a personal name, since officers rotate with transfers.

Rs.10. For the Supreme Court, pay by cash, Indian Postal Order, Money Order or Demand Draft favouring “Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi” — court fee stamps and cheques are not accepted. For High Courts and District Courts, follow your State RTI Rules on the amount and mode.

That is imprecise. Cite the two-route split from *CIC v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702*: judicial-side copies go through court rules, but administrative-side records (vacancy, listing logic, infrastructure, pendency) remain under RTI. If the PIO still refuses, file a first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days.

No. If third-party procedure under Section 11 is triggered, the time limit extends to 40 days while the third party is heard. The PIO must still apply the Section 8(1) exemptions and the public-interest test under Section 8(2) before refusing.

For Supreme Court matters, to the Central Information Commission. For High Court and District Court matters, to your State Information Commission. File within 90 days of the FAA's order under Section 19(3). There is no fee under the Central Rules.

No. The Delhi High Court in *Harish Lamba* (January 2025) held that RTI cannot compel a public authority to create new analytical data. Ask for records the Registry already maintains — listing registers, cause-list archives, vacancy returns, age-wise pendency buckets — not a fresh report.

Use the eCourts Services portal (https://services.ecourts.gov.in) — search by CNR number, party name, case number, filing number, advocate name or FIR number. For SMS status, send `ECOURTS <CNR>` to 9766899899. Live pendency figures are on the National Judicial Data Grid (https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in).

Yes. Under Section 20(1) the Information Commission can impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day (maximum Rs.25,000) on the PIO for unreasonable refusal or delay, and under Section 20(2) recommend disciplinary action. This is rare but available, and the possibility itself often secures a reply.

1. RTI for Beginners: Everything You Need to Know Before Filing Your — the RTI primer if this is your first application
2. Bail order and custody records via RTI — getting bail and court records through the right route
3. RTI Application for Police FIR Status — FIR and police case-status RTI, the case-status family
4. court-order-not-uploaded-online-case-status-wrong — when the order is missing from the online case status
5. certified-copy-fir-chargesheet-closure-report-not-provided — the judicial-side certified-copy route
6. old-court-order-copy-not-traceable — recovering an old court order copy
7. divorce-decree-certified-copy-delayed-family-court — certified-copy delay in family courts
8. Government Scheme Benefits Not Received? Use RTI to Track Your — the delay-pain family, for scheme delays

1. AI RTI Drafter — auto-fill the PIO, FAA and sample questions for your specific court and state: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html
2. First Appeal Drafter — when the 30-day reply does not come: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html
3. PIO Reply Checker — test whether the PIO's refusal is legally valid: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker-app.html
4. Timeline Calculator — work out your 30-day, first-appeal and second-appeal deadlines: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/timeline-calculator-app.html

1. Supreme Court of India — *CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal*, (2020) 5 SCC 481, judgment PDF dated 13 November 2019: [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/36624/36624_2009_1_1502_18247_Judgement_13-Nov-2019.pdf)
2. Indian Kanoon — *Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat*, (2020) 4 SCC 702 (decided 4 March 2020): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17564850/)
3. LiveLaw — Copy of court documents not through RTI (report on the Gujarat HC SC judgment): [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/rti/copy-of-court-documents-not-through-rti-153451)
4. Supreme Court of India — official RTI page (CPIO address, fee and mode): [sci.gov.in](https://www.sci.gov.in/rti/)
5. Central Information Commission — second appeal procedure: [cic.gov.in](https://cic.gov.in/second-appeal)
6. eCommittee, Supreme Court — eCourts Services portal: [ecommitteesci.gov.in](https://ecommitteesci.gov.in/service/ecourts-services-portal/)
7. eCourts Services — case status, cause lists, orders and judgments: [services.ecourts.gov.in](https://services.ecourts.gov.in)
8. National Judicial Data Grid — live pendency dashboard: [njdg.ecourts.gov.in](https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in)
9. SCC Online — *M.P. Chothy v. Registrar General, High Court of Kerala* (20 July 2022), upholding Rule 12 of the RTI (Subordinate Courts and Tribunals) Rules, 2006: [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/25/diary-civil-criminal-proceedings-rti-kerala-highcourt-constitutional-validity-legal-research-legal-news/)
10. The Hindu — CIC holds file notings on Supreme Court Rules 2013 not exempt from RTI (August 2016): [thehindu.com](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/File-notings-on-court-rules-not-exempt-from-RTI/article14549299.ece)
11. Central RTI online portal: [rtionline.gov.in](https://rtionline.gov.in)

Last reviewed: 4 July 2026.