High Court clarifies RTI Act: No obligation to maintain records beyond available info.

The High Court set aside the Central Information Commission's direction to maintain records of pending judgments beyond the obligations under the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that public authorities are only required to provide information readily available with them. The Court clarified that the Act does not mandate authorities to collate non-available information for applicants. The judgment highlighted the strict interpretation of the Act's provisions and underscored the limitations on public authorities in collecting or compiling information, ultimately emphasizing compliance with the law's requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the obligation of public authorities to provide information.
2. Validity of the direction given by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to maintain records of pending judgments after being reserved.
3. Applicability of the judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497 to the present case.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge in a writ petition where the respondent sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding pending cases before the Supreme Court of India. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had not provided the information initially, leading to appeals and directions from the CIC. The Single Judge upheld the direction to maintain records for future reference but disallowed the information to be placed in the public domain.

2. The crux of the issue revolved around whether the CPIO was obligated to provide information not readily available in the format sought by the applicant. The appellant contended that the Act only requires public authorities to provide information that is already available with them, citing the judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. The CIC's direction to compile information for future disclosure was challenged on the grounds that it exceeded the obligations under the Act.

3. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Right to Information Act, emphasizing that public authorities are required to maintain records in a manner facilitating access to information. Referring to the definition of "record" under the Act, the Court concluded that the Act does not mandate public authorities to collate information not readily available with them. Relying on the judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Court held that the direction given by the CIC was not in line with the Act's provisions and set aside the orders of the Single Judge and the CIC.

4. In the final judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the direction of the CIC and the Single Judge's order upholding it. The Court clarified that public authorities are obligated to provide information that is available with them, as per the Act's provisions. The judgment highlighted the limitations on public authorities to collect or collate non-available information for applicants under the Right to Information Act, emphasizing compliance with the law laid down in previous cases.

5. The Court's decision focused on the strict interpretation of the Act's provisions regarding the obligation of public authorities to provide information and the limitations on requiring authorities to collate information not readily available with them. By setting aside the direction to maintain records beyond the Act's requirements, the judgment reinforced the principle that public authorities must provide existing information as per the law's provisions.

---