RTI limits on judicial reasoning and records clarified through harmonious reading with Supreme Court Rules.

RTI requests cannot be used to compel a judge to explain judicial reasoning, disclose the mental process behind a decision, or reopen a concluded determination; information that is non-existent, absurd, or effectively seeks review of a judicial order falls outside the Act. The text also explains that the Right to Information Act does not automatically override the Supreme Court Rules in relation to judicial records and functioning: Section 22 displaces other laws only where there is true inconsistency, so the two regimes are to be harmonised, with RTI applying more readily to administrative functions and the Rules governing judicial process and access to judicial records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether queries seeking reasons for or disclosure of judicial decision-making, or otherwise seeking non-existent or inherently untenable information, are maintainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides the Supreme Court Rules in relation to access to judicial records and copies.

Issue (i): Whether queries seeking reasons for or disclosure of judicial decision-making, or otherwise seeking non-existent or inherently untenable information, are maintainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005;

Analysis: A judge speaks through judgments and orders, and cannot be compelled through an RTI application to later explain the reasons for a judicial decision. Where the information sought is non-existent, the query is absurd, or the request effectively seeks to reopen a concluded judicial determination, the request is outside the proper scope of the Act. Information requests that border on contempt or seek disclosure of the mental process behind a judicial decision are impermissible. The Court also held that RTI is not a substitute for appeal, review, or other legally permissible challenge to a judicial order.

Conclusion: Such queries are not maintainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (ii): Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides the Supreme Court Rules in relation to access to judicial records and copies.

Analysis: The Court held that there is no inherent inconsistency between the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Supreme Court Rules, because both regimes provide access to information, though through different mechanisms. The non-obstante clause in Section 22 operates only where there is real repugnancy, and not to displace a parallel statutory scheme that also facilitates disclosure. The Court further held that dissemination of information in relation to the Supreme Court's judicial functioning falls within the judicial process regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, while the RTI Act may operate in relation to administrative functioning. Harmonious construction was therefore required, and the later Act did not impliedly override the Rules in this context.

Conclusion: The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not override the Supreme Court Rules in relation to judicial records and judicial functioning.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the CIC's direction to furnish the requested information was set aside, as the impugned order ignored the limits of RTI in relation to judicial decisions and misconstrued the interaction between the RTI Act and the Supreme Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The Right to Information Act cannot be used to compel disclosure of the reasons for a judicial decision or to supplant a separate statutory regime governing access to judicial records, and Section 22 overrides other laws only to the extent of true inconsistency.

---