In the Turkish legal system, there is a stark division in matters relating to civil law and administrative law, in which while the Court of Cassation is designated as the highest court of appeal in civil litigation, the Council of State remains the highest court of ap-peal in administrative matters. In principle, both Courts function at the highest level with a power of setting legal precedent. This signi-fies an important judicial role in the law-making process with either their decision of precedence tended to be binding, in a point of law, on another court in deciding a similar case or other decisions with a persuasive power, in certain circumstances or facts, on another court on deciding a similar case, to the effect that case law is built up out of precedents as such. No doubt, it becomes vitally crucial for fair trial and transparency to allow the public to have open access to case reports in the judicial process to enable them to exercise the right to fair trial and freedom of information. However, in practice, not all but only limited number of the Courts’ important decisions of binding precedent are fully reported. Some other decisions of persuasive precedent remain in vastly unreported cases, access to which is solely available for the public by way of commercial me-ans in the form of either publications by current or former judges of the Court and clerks to the Court or alternatively privately-run legal databases, and so is payable. We consider the Courts’ practice of unreported cases ‘a partial restriction on the public right to access to justice’ and therefore, it constitutes an administrative act in legal nature. Thus, we believe that such an act as this must be subject to scrutiny in terms of its legal elements and that the Courts’ current (un)reporting practice calls for a critical examination into its legality in administrative law.