🧭 Judicial Pronouncements Without Compliance: A Statutory Ambiguity Under the Public Records Act

By Rajnish Ratnakar
Constitutional Activist | RTI & Public Grievance Strategist | Founder, RTI & PG Warriors of India

 

⚖️ Introduction: The Mirage of Justice Without Enforceability

In a constitutional democracy, the judiciary is not merely a pronouncer of judgments—it is a sovereign enforcer of justice. Yet across India’s judicial landscape, a disturbing custodianship vacuum persists: courts seldom track whether their own judgments are complied with, or whether contempt proceedings have been initiated or concluded.

This is not merely administrative negligence—it reflects a statutory ambiguity under the Public Records Act, 1993, and a constitutional abdication of enforceability.

 

📚 The Public Records Act: A Disputed but Relevant Mandate

Contrary to common assumptions, the Public Records Act does not expressly exclude the judiciary. Its definitions and duties can arguably extend to judicial offices:

  • Section 2(e), Public Records Act, 1993: Defines “records creating agency” broadly to include offices financed from public funds.
  • Section 4: Mandates preservation and management of public records.
  • Section 5: Requires appointment of Records Officers to ensure proper custody.
  • Section 6: Prohibits unauthorized destruction or non-indexing of records.

If interpreted purposively, judgment files, execution records, compliance affidavits, and contempt orders qualify as public records. Non-indexing thus creates at least a potential breach, though this remains judicially unsettled.

 

🧨 The Custodianship Collapse

Despite these mandates, judicial institutions generally:

  • Do not maintain indexed compliance-tracking reports.
  • Do not disclose reasons for such omission under RTI Act, Section 4(1)(c) (proactive disclosure requirement upheld in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497).
  • Do not formally appoint Records Officers under the Public Records Act (though Registrars may perform parallel roles under High Court Rules).
  • Do not publish execution status, even for landmark judgments (contrast with Supreme Court’s own monitoring in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, where police reforms compliance was tracked, albeit selectively).

This custodianship gap shields executive defiance, obstructs citizen audit, and erodes the dignity of judicial sovereignty.

 

🛠️ Doctrinal Escalation Path

As constitutional auditors, escalation must proceed through institutional and public routes:

  1. RTI under Section 4(1)(a) & (c): Demand certified records of judgment compliance and reasons for non-disclosure (CIC in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Lok Sabha Secretariat, CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, held that denial of “non-maintenance” is itself a violation of RTI duties).
  2. Public Grievance to Registrar General: Demand appointment of Records Officer–equivalent posts and indexing of execution records.
  3. Second Appeal to CIC: Escalate custodianship denial as a statutory ambiguity with constitutional implications.
  4. Media Briefings & Academic Outreach: Amplify the doctrinal void to legal scholars, watchdogs, and international observers (as recognized in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, where judicial accountability and free expression were balanced).

 

🧭 Conclusion: Justice Must Be Trackable

A judgment without compliance is a constitutional mirage. A court that does not track its own enforceability is not sovereign—it is symbolic.

The Public Records Act may not be optional. Even if its direct application to the judiciary remains unsettled, it stands as a statutory mirror that reflects the integrity of every public institution.

It is time the judiciary looked into it.

 

🔖 References

  1. Public Records Act, 1993 — Sections 2(e), 4, 5, 6.
  2. RTI Act, 2005 — Section 4(1)(a) & (c).
  3. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
  4. Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Lok Sabha Secretariat, CIC/AT/A/2007/01029.
  5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.
  6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

                                                                                              The Judiciary's Silent Breach – A Call for Constitutional Accountability The bedrock of India's democracy rests upon the principle of justice, meticulously crafted and upheld by its judiciary. However, a concerning "doctrinal vacuum" has emerged, where the Supreme Court, despite pronouncing landmark rulings, lacks a clear internal oversight policy to ensure the implementation of its own judgments. This critical oversight is not merely a procedu...
Read more
Image
    Unmasking the Cobra: A Call to Reclaim India's Constitutional Promise India, the world's largest democracy, stands at a critical juncture. The narrative of its democratic struggles is often simplified, but the truth, as unearthed by deep legal and administrative scrutiny, is far more alarming: India’s democracy is not failing—it is being systematically sabotaged. This is the urgent, unvarnished truth unveiled by constitutional activist Rajnish Ratnakar in his groundbreaking manifesto, "The Cobra Codex: Eleven Theories of Constitutional Betrayal and Democratic Resurrection." Ratnakar, the visionary Founder of RTI & Public Grievance Warriors of India, argues that through meticulous RTI activism, legal audits, and doctrinal analysis, he has uncovered not just loopholes, but deliberate designs to bury citizen power. This is more than inefficiency; it is a calculated erosion of accountability, allowing impunity to flourish. His manifesto presents eleven pier...
Read more
  A Citizen's Fight for Transparency: The Battle to Uphold the RTI Act In a powerful legal move, a constitutional activist and RTI strategist has filed a writ petition in the High Court, bringing to light a troubling pattern of institutional failure by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) and the Central Information Commission (CIC). This is not merely a personal legal battle; it is a fight for the integrity of India's democracy and the fundamental right of every citizen to access information. The petitioner, a dedicated activist and a sole caregiver for a chronically ill mother, has meticulously documented a systemic breakdown in the public grievance and information system. The core of his case revolves around eight specific Right to Information (RTI) applications filed against DARPG, each seeking crucial information to hold public servants accountable. The Information We're All Entitled To The petitioner's RTI applications were aimed ...
Read more