The “success rate” of RTI applications in the Indian judiciary is a complex issue, as it is often measured by two different metrics: the disposal rate (how many requests are answered) and the disclosure rate (how much actual information is shared).
While the judiciary is technically a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act, data suggests it remains one of the more difficult institutions from which to extract specific administrative or personal data.
1. High Disposal, Low Disclosure
Recent statistics (2023–2025) indicate that the Supreme Court and High Courts have high disposal rates (often above 90%), meaning they respond to almost all applications within the 30-day limit. However, a “disposed” application does not always mean the information was provided.
- The “Others” Category: A 2021-22 analysis revealed that over 90% of rejections by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court fell into the “Others” category—meaning they were rejected without citing a specific exemption clause from Section 8 of the RTI Act.
- Supreme Court Trends: In 2021, the Supreme Court reportedly halved its use of the “Privacy” exemption (Section 8(1)(j)), but rejections under administrative rules remained high.
2. Common Grounds for Rejection
The judiciary frequently denies information based on its own internal rules, which often override the RTI Act:1
- Section 8(1)(j) – Privacy: Information regarding judges’ assets, service records of employees, or medical expenses is almost always denied as “personal information.”
- Section 8(1)(e) – Fiduciary Relationship: Correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Collegium is often protected under the claim of “trust and confidence.”2
- Judicial vs. Administrative: Courts often refuse to provide information about ongoing cases through RTI, directing applicants to use the Certified Copy process under the High Court Rules instead. This process is often more expensive and restrictive than an RTI.
3. Structural Barriers to Success
Recent reports from 2024–2025 highlight several “hidden” reasons why the success rate for citizens is lower than in other departments:
- Rule-Making Power (Section 28): High Courts use their power to set their own RTI fees.3 While the Central Govt fee is ₹10, some High Courts have charged up to ₹500 per application, which acts as a deterrent.
- Offline Hurdles: Until recently, very few High Courts allowed online RTI filing.4 As of late 2024, more courts have moved online, but the interfaces are often described as “cumbersome” compared to the Central RTI portal.
Summary Table: Judicial RTI Statistics (Estimates)
| Metric | Judicial Performance | Impact on Applicant |
| Response Time | High (30-day compliance is high) | You get an answer quickly. |
| Information Grant | Low to Moderate | Most “sensitive” data is denied. |
| Rejection Reason | Often “Internal Court Rules” | Harder to challenge in an appeal. |
| Online Access | Improving (Supreme Court is 24/7) | Easier to file than 5 years ago. |
Conclusion for Your Case
In your specific pursuit regarding the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj, you are dealing with an Executive/Administrative body, not a Judicial one. Historically, the success rate for obtaining “Certified Copies” of service rules and communications from municipal corporations is significantly higher than getting the same from a Court of Law, provided you can prove a “larger public interest” (which you have done by citing the criminal proceedings).
District Judge Gorakhpur is the administration head of judiciary at the level of district Gorakhpur, wielding significant authority and responsibility to ensure that justice is delivered fairly and efficiently at the district level. His prerogative includes overseeing court proceedings, ensuring legal compliance, and resolving numerous cases that come under his jurisdiction.
Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, a concerned citizen, is eagerly expecting a solution to the complex issues he faces, which have deeply affected his life and well-being. There has been a travesty of justice inflicted upon him and his family member by his own father, an instance that has not only shattered their familial bonds but has also raised serious questions about the integrity of the judicial system in handling such delicate personal matters.
This situation highlights the critical role of the judiciary in restoring order and providing redress for those wronged, emphasizing the urgent need for a thorough investigation and appropriate action in his case.
Seeking an Update: Naresh Kumar Jaiswal’s RTI Application on a Family Court Case
On September 13, 2025, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal filed a Right to Information (RTI) application, seeking transparency and accountability. He submitted it to the office of the District Judge, Gorakhpur, focusing on his family’s ongoing concerns regarding a long-standing legal matter that had created significant distress and uncertainty in their lives.
The application was crafted with careful attention to detail, outlining specific questions about the status of their case and the procedural delays they had encountered, reflecting Naresh’s determination to secure justice and clarity for his family amidst the complexities of the legal system.
The Subject of the RTI: An Email Representation
Jaiswal’s RTI application directly refers to an email he sent on June 8, 2025. This email was addressed to dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in and detailed grievances related to an ongoing case, Criminal Misc. Cases/915/2021 PRIYANKA JAISWAL VS NARESH KUMAR JAISWAL, which is currently pending in the Court of the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court II, under the purview of the District Judge in Gorakhpur.
In this communication, Jaiswal elaborated on various concerns he encountered during the proceedings, highlighting procedural irregularities and delays that have significantly affected the case’s timeline. Furthermore, he expressed a need for transparency and accountability from the judicial system, suggesting that these issues not only impede justice for his specific case but also reflect broader problems within the court’s management of family law cases.
Jaiswal’s efforts to seek clarity through the RTI process underscore his commitment to ensuring that his rights, as well as those of others in similar situations, are upheld in accordance with legal standards and principles.
The Information Requested
Within his RTI application, Jaiswal has made a specific request for an Action Taken Report. He is seeking a detailed breakdown of the steps taken by the authorities in response to his June 8th email, which raised critical concerns regarding the ongoing issues that have affected the community.
Furthermore, he has requested the following specific details: the timeline of actions undertaken, the individuals or departments involved in addressing his concerns, and any correspondence related to the matter that may shed light on how the authorities are handling the situation. This request not only aims to understand the current status but also seeks accountability and transparency in the processes followed by the authorities.
- The names, designations, and office details of any officials to whom his representation has been forwarded.
- The current status of the matter concerning his representation, especially any involvement from the District Judge of Gorakhpur.
Jaiswal has also confirmed that he has paid the required Rs. 50 RTI application fee online, as part of the filing process to the District Judge’s office in Gorakhpur.
Official Details and Next Steps
The application was formally received in the office of district judge Gorakhpur on September 13, 2025, marking an important step in the process of addressing public inquiries and promoting transparency. The nodal officer assigned for managing this RTI request is Rajesh Pati Tripathi, who can be reached via his email ID dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in. Importantly, his role not only connects with duties surrounding RTI queries in the District Judge’s office at Gorakhpur but also encompasses a broader responsibility in ensuring that the information requested by citizens is processed efficiently and correctly. Mr. Tripathi is dedicated to upholding the principles of the Right to Information Act, facilitating communication between the public and the judiciary, and ensuring that all requests are handled in a timely manner while maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the information involved. By promoting transparency and accountability, this office aims to reinforce the trust of the community in the judicial system, ultimately contributing to a more informed and engaged citizenry.
The provisions of the RTI Act apply here. The matter may not fall under the jurisdiction of the CPIO in the District Judge’s office. In that case, Jaiswal has requested a transfer of his application to the appropriate Public Information Officer. The CPIO must give the requested information. Alternatively, the CPIO should transfer the application promptly as stipulated by the Act.
| Registration Number | DNGKP/R/2025/60049 | |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Naresh Kumar Jaiswal | |
| Date of Filing | 13/09/2025 | |
| Status | RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 13/09/2025 | |
| Nodal Officer Details Name | RAJESH PATI TRIPATHI | |
| Email-ID | dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in | |
Additional district judge Budaun again denied CD of court functioning
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.