Table of Contents
Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer
Supreme Court of India · 2010-01-04 · (2010) 2 SCC 1 · ★ Landmark
Judicial reasoning is not 'information'; 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 |
| Bench | P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan |
| Petitioner | Khanapuram Gandaiah |
| Respondent | Administrative Officer & Ors. |
| RTI Act sections | §2(f) |
| Outcome | Rejected |
Outcome
Reasoning of a judicial officer is NOT 'information' under §2(f); only the final order/decision is.
Ratio decidendi
The judicial officer's reasons/opinions in arriving at a decision are not 'information' under §2(f). Only the final decision/order, and the materials on record before it, are disclosable.
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.
- Namit Sharma v. Union of India (SC 2012)
- Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC (CIC 2020)
- Own APAR and service-book access (SC 2022)
- Union of India v. R. Jayachandran (SC 2017)
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