http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 25  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4294 of 1998

PETITIONER: People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr.                                

RESPONDENT: U.O.I. & Ors.                                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/2004

BENCH: CJI & S.B. Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4295 of 1998

S.B. SINHA, J :

INTRODUCTION:

       Right of information is a fundamental right under  Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.  The State under  Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, is  entitled to impose reasonable restrictions inter alia in the  interest of the State.  How far and to what extent the same  should be balanced is the question involved in these appeals  which arise out of judgments and orders dated 30th  January, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 1785 and 1792 of 1996.

WRIT PROCEEDINGS:

       The appellants herein in the said writ petition sought  disclosure of information from the respondents relating to  purported safety violations and defects in various nuclear  installations and power plants across the country including  those situated at Trombay and Tarapur.  The said demand of  information was made purported to be relying on or on the  basis of an information that the Atomic Energy Regulatory  Board (AERB) prepared a report in November, 1995 documenting  therein safety defects and weaknesses citing 130 instances  which are said to be matters of concern.  The appellants  contended that a former Chairman of the AERB, Dr.  Gopalkrishnan also expressed serious concern about the  safety of nuclear installations in India disclosing that  serious accidents had occurred in some of the nuclear  facilities including one at Narora Atomic Power Plant in the  State of U.P. and Kaiga Atomic Power Plant situated in the  State of Karnataka.   

       The appellants herein in support of its prayers made in  the writ petition mainly relied upon the reports appearing  in the newspapers, magazines and editorials and articles.   

       In their counter affidavit, the respondents herein

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 25  

inter alia contended that the said Board was constituted in  terms of Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act entrusting the  task to develop Safety Codes, Guides and Standards for  siting, design construction, commissioning, operating and  decommissioning of the different types of plants, keeping in  view the international recommendations and local  requirements and develop safety policies in both radiation  and industrial safety areas; Reviewing health and aspects of  modifications in design/ operation involving changes in the  technical specification adopted in any of the Department of  Atomic Energy (DAE) units; Reviewing operational experience  in the light of the radiological and other safety criteria  recommended by the International Commission on Radiological  Protection, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and  such other international bodies and adapted to suit Indian  conditions, and thereby evolve major safety policies;  Prescribing acceptable limits of radiation exposure to  occupational workers and members of the public and approve  acceptable limits of environmental releases of radioactive  substances; reviewing the emergency preparedness plans for  non-DAE installations; Promote research and development  efforts for fulfilling the functions and responsibilities  specified; Reviewing the training programme, qualifications  and licensing policies for personnel by the project/ plants;  Enforcing rules and regulations promulgated under the Atomic  Energy Act, 1962 for radiation safety in the country and  such other functions as specified therein.

       With the said counter affidavit, the Fourth Report of  the Nuclear Plant Safety and Spent Fuel Management prepared  by the Standing Committee on Atomic Energy consisting of  members of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha had also  been annexed.  The Annual Report for the year 1995-96  prepared by the Government of India had also been annexed  therewith.  It was further contended that the specific  questions were asked in the Parliament in relation to the  alleged accidents which had been answered.  It had been  emphasized that necessary legislative and regulatory  framework to ensure a competitive and independent assessment  of the safety related requirements and practices in all  nuclear installations have come into being.  The respondents  in their affidavits furthermore stated that there had been   constant interaction with the media and the public in  nuclear safety related matters to instill an increasing  level of confidence in the public that safety is indeed  receiving topmost priority in all nuclear activities.

       Dr. A. Gopalkrishanan, a former Chairman of AERB, on  whose press statements the writ petition was filed, also in  a statement before the reporters of the Economic Times which  was published in the said newspaper on 11th February,  1995, stated:

"Let me emphasize that, Atomic Energy  Regulatory Board is able to implement  their decisions today without any  interference or pressures in its  functioning from outside sources.  The  statement of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru  while adverting to certain amendments  moved to the Atomic Energy Bill in the  year 1948 has also been relied upon."

       One Mr. G.R. Srinivasan, Director, Health Safety in his  affidavit disclosed that out of 130 items in the documents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 25  

of AERB which required attention, 89 issues directly pertain  to Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) while 6 other issues  concerned NPC, ABRC AND DAF.

       In the said affidavit it was pointed out:

"...that the Atomic Energy Commission  informed the 5th Respondent on 22nd  November, 1995 of the various issues to  be tackled by NPC installations for the  NEP’s response.  By 4th December,  1995, the NPC has given its, over 100  page response to the issue to AEC and  thereafter NPC constituted a Committee  on 11th December, 1995 to interact and  discuss with the AERB regarding  resolvement of the said issue.  A total  of 19 meetings were held with AERB staff  and mutually agreed time bound action  plans have been arrived at for all 95  issues.  Final agreed action plans have  been issued on 55 issues, because of  degree of urgency.  It is pointed out  that the question of safety issues in  NPC is a document which is highly  technical in nature and it would neither  be in public interest for the same to be  disclosed nor could be it discerned by  general public."

       Yet again Shri Anupam Dasgupta, Joint Secretary in the  DAE in his affidavit by way of sur-rejoinder dated 24th  January, 1997 contended that the aforementioned 130 items  listed in the AERB report titled "Safety Issues in DAE  installations" are based on the proceedings and  recommendations of various meetings of the Standing Safety  Committees which have been constituted by the AERB itself to  review the safety nuclear installations on a regular basis.   In the said sur-rejoinder a press release of 26th March,  1996 of Dr. A. Gopalkrishnan was annexed wherein it was  stated:

"For each of the items identified, the  concerned DAE installation and AERB are  jointly preparing the preliminary  details of corrective actions and a  committed time schedule for implementing  them.  These will be reviewed and  finalized by the AERB Safety Review  Committees and the Board, for timely  implementation thereafter by the DAE.   DAE installations are closely co- operating with the AERB in expediting  the process of safety upgradation."

       Similarly, Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy in a press release  dated 23rd June, 1996 stated:

"In the judgment of the Board, there is  at the moment no shortcoming existing  which can lead to any nuclear disaster  or Chernobyl type catastrophe in any of  these installations.  The Board would  like to assure the public that all the  DAE installations are being continuously

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 25  

monitored and that it would not hesitate  to initiate restrictive regulatory  actions wherever necessary."

       The respondents, however, relying on or on the basis of  a notification dated 4th February, 1975 passed under sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962,  raised a plea of privilege in relation to the said report,  contending that the same had been classified as ’Secret’ as  it pertains to the nuclear installations in the country  which includes several sensitive facilities carried out  therein involving activities of highly classified nature.           In the said affidavit, it was averred that the deponent  had applied his mind and found that the documents satisfy  the requirements of the Order dated 4th February, 1975  read with Section 18 of the Act as if the same is directed  to be published would cause irreparable injury to the  interest of the State as also would be prejudicial to the  national security.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

       The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (’the Act’) was enacted to  provide for the development, control and use of atomic  energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other  peaceful purposes and for matters connected therewith.   Section 2(a) of then Act defines "atomic energy" to mean  energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any  process, including the fission and fusion processes.  The  relevant provisions of the said Act are as under :

2(b). "Fissile material" means uranium  233, uranium 235, plutonium or any  material containing these substances or  any other material that may be declared  as such by notification by the Central  Government;

2(e). "plant" includes machinery,  equipment or appliance, whether affixed  to land or not;

2(h). "radiation" means gamma rays, X- rays and rays consisting of alpha  particles, beta particles, neutrons,  protons and other nuclear and sub-atomic  particles; but not sound or radio waves,  or visible, infra-red or ultra-violet  light;

2(i). "radioactive substance" or  "radioactive material" means any  substance or material which  spontaneously emits radiation in excess  of the levels prescribed by notification  by the Central Government."

       Section 3 provides for the general powers of the  Central Government which include: (a) to produce, develop, use and dispose  of atomic energy either by itself or  through any authority or corporation  established by it or a Government company

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 25  

and carry out research into any matters  connected therewith; (b) to manufacture of otherwise produce  any prescribed or radioactive substance  and any articles which in its opinion  are, or are likely to be, required for,  or in connection with, the production,  development or use of atomic energy or  such research as aforesaid and to dispose  of such prescribed or radioactive  substance or any articles manufactured or  otherwise produced; (bb) (i) to buy or otherwise acquire,  store and transport any prescribed or  radioactive substance and any articles  which in its opinion are, or are likely  to be, required for, or in connection  with, the production, development or use  of atomic energy; and (ii) to dispose of such prescribed or  radioactive substance or any articles  bought or otherwise acquired by it, either by itself or through any authority  or corporation established by it, or a  Government company;] (c) to declare as "restricted  information" any information not so far  published or otherwise made public  relating to-- (i) the location, quality and quantity of  prescribed substances and transactions  for their acquisition, whether by  purchase or otherwise, or disposal,  whether by sale or otherwise; (ii) the processing of prescribed  substances and the extraction or  production of fissile materials from  them; (iii) the theory, design, construction  and operation of plants for the treatment  and production of any of the prescribed  substances and for the separation of  isotopes; (iv) the theory, design, construction and  operation of nuclear reactors; (v) research and technological work on  materials and process involved in or  derived from items (i) to (iv); (d) to declare as "prohibited area" any  area or premises where work including  research, design or development is  carried on in respect of the production,  treatment, use, application or disposal  of atomic energy or of any prescribed  substance; (e) to provide for control over  radioactive substances or radiation  generating plant in order to-- (i) prevent radiation hazards; (ii) secure public safety and safety of  persons handling radioactive substances  or radiation generating plant; and (iii) ensure safe disposal of radioactive  wastes; (f) to provide for the production and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 25  

supply of electricity from atomic energy  and for taking measures conducive to such  production and supply and for all matters  incidental thereto either by itself or  through any authority or corporation  established by it or a Government company  and (g) to do all such things (including the  erection of buildings and execution of  works and the working of minerals) as the  Central Government considers necessary or  expedient for the exercise of the  foregoing powers."

       Section 16 provides for control over radioactive  substances.  Section 17 provides for the rule making power  of the Central Government by making special provisions as to  safety.  Section 18 of the Act reads as under:

"18. Restriction on disclosure of  information.-- (1) The Central Government may by order  restrict the disclosure of information,  whether contained in a document, drawing  photograph, plan, model, or in any other  form whatsoever, which relates to,  represents or illustrates-- (a) an existing or proposed plant used or  proposed to be used for the purpose of  producing, developing or using atomic  energy, or (b) the purpose or method of operation of  any such existing or proposed plant, or (c) any process operated or proposed to  be operated in any such existing or  proposed plant. (2) No person shall-- (a) disclose, or obtain or attempt to  obtain any information restricted under  sub-section (1), or (b) disclose, without the authority of  the Central Government, any information  obtained in the discharge of any  functions under this Act or in the  performance of his official duties. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply-- (i) to the disclosure of information with  respect to any plant of a type in use for  purposes other than the production,  development or use of atomic energy,  unless the information discloses that  plant of that type is used or proposed to  be used for the production, development  or use of atomic energy or research into  any matters connected therewith; or (ii) where any information has been made  available to the general public otherwise  than in contravention of this section, to  any subsequent disclosure of that  information.

       Section 27 of the Act empowers the Central Government  to set up Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

       Pursuant to or in furtherance of the rule making power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 25  

contained in Section 30 of the Act, the following rules have  been framed:

(i)     Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 (ii)    Atomic Energy (Working of Mines, Minerals and  Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules. (iii)   Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal and Radioactive Wastes)  Rules, 1987 (iv)    Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1996 (v)     Atomic Energy (Control of Irradiation of Food)  Rules, 1996.

STATUTORY BODIES:

       It is not in dispute that the Atomic Energy Commission  is constituted by the Union of India in terms of the  provisions of the Act.  The Central Government has issued a  notification dated 11th July, 2003 reconstituting the  Atomic Energy Commission with the following composition:

1. Dr. Anil Kakodkar Secretary, Department of  Atomic Energy - Chairman  (ex officio) 2. Dr. Raja Ramanna Member, Rajya Sabha & former  Chairman, AEC & Secretary,  DAE - Member 3. Shri Brajesh Mishra Principal Secretary to the  Prime Minister - Member 4. Shri Kamal Pande Cabinet Secretary - Member 5. Shri D.C. Gupta Finance Secretary &  Secretary, Dept. of  Expenditure, Ministry of  Finance - Member 6. Dr. S.S. Meenakshisundaram Ex officio Secretary to the  Government of India - Member for  Finance 7. Prof. C.N.R. Rao Honorary President,  Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for  Advanced Scientific  Research, Bangalore - Member 8. Dr. V.K. Chaturvedi Chairman & Managing Director Nuclear Power Corporation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 25  

India Ltd. - Member 9. Shri B. Bhattacharjee Director, Bhabha Atomic  Research Centre - Member

       It is also not in dispute that the Central Government  in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 27  of the Act, had set up the Board to enforce certain  regulatory and safety measures envisaged under Sections 16,  17 and 23 of the Act.  The composition of the Board include:

1. Prof. S.P. Sukhatme - Chairman  2. Shri S.K. Sharma Vice-Chairman, AERB - Ex-officio  Member 3. Dr. M.V.S. Valiathan Honorary Advisor Manipal Academy of Higher  Education, Manipal - Member 4. Dr. K.V. Raghavan Director Indian Institute of Chemical  Technology, Hyderabad - Member 5. Prof. J.B. Joshi Professor and Director University Institute of  Chemical Technology (UICT) - Member 6. Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy Director Information and Technical  Services Division, AERB - Secretary

 HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:

       Before the High Court the following three contentions  were raised by the appellants:

(i)     the citizens have a right to have access to the  copies of the AERB report; (ii)    Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act is invalid on  the ground that there are no guidelines for the  exercise of discretion in notifying a document as a  Secret document; and (iii)   an Independent regulatory Body to replace AERB  should be appointed to monitor the safety measures  taken in the nuclear power plants.

       The High Court although took notice of ’the horror of  the nuclear holocaust which the world first felt when the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 25  

America Bomber, Enola Gay descended from the clouds and  emptied its bowels on the city of Hiroshima’ but refused to  look in to the AERB Report itself upon arriving at a  satisfaction that the respondents had been acting in public  interest as also the interest of the nuclear installations  in the country stating:

"1. Admittedly, these questions are  repeatedly considered by the Parliament,  it is discussed in the Parliament and  once the Parliament is taking  appropriate decision on the safety and  other aspects of the Nuclear  Installations, it would not be proper  for this Court to exercise its writ  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the  Constitution;

2. As stated earlier, the Memorandum  dated 7th January, 1997 is issued by  the Prime Minister to look into all  aspect of the present regulatory process  and as pointed out by the learned  Additional Solicitor General, this would  include the consideration of 130  defects/ irregularities pointed out in  the AERB report.  This Committee  constituted consists of experts in the  field;

3. It has been pointed out that the  hierarchy in the Department of Atomic  Energy monitors the running of the  Plants and Nuclear Installations; and

4. Further, the steps taken for  reviewing 130 safety issues in the DAE  Installation by the Committee cannot be  subject matter of judicial review."

       As regard the question of vires of certain provisions  of the Act and in particular Sections 13 and 18 thereof, the  High Court held that there are guidelines both in Sections  18 and 3 of the Atomic Energy Act in terms whereof the  Central Government has been conferred with the power to  restrict information as in wrong hands the same can pose a  danger not only to the security of the State but to the  public at large.  It also rejected the contention that only  because the nuclear plants are carrying out commercial  activities, a citizen has a right to know stating:

"...Nuclear Power Plants as a by- product generate plutonium which is a  radioactive metal used in Nuclear  Research amongst others for preparation  of Atom Bomb.  If the defects and the  remedies to cure the defects in the  Nuclear Power Plants fall in the wrong  hands it can pose danger to the security  of the nation itself.  The challenge,  therefore, on that count must fail."

       The High Court opined that the very fact that AERB has  prepared the report is suggestive of the fact that it is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 25  

alive to its duties.

SUBMISSIONS:

       Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the appellants would submit that the right of  information is a part of the fundamental right in terms of  Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and, thus,  the citizens of India could not be denied the requisite  informations sought for.  He would urge that for the purpose  of ensuring that appropriate safety standards are maintained  by the nuclear plants and the radiations which occurred in  normal course and/ or duty accidents as well as nuclear  wastes, it is important that the guidelines/ norms/  safeguards taken by the nuclear plants towards not only the  workers employed therein but also the general public should  be disclosed.  Such informations, Mr. Prashant Bhushan would  contend, to a section of citizens and particularly those who  are experts in the field would enable them to highlight the  safety deficiencies obtaining in such plants and, if  necessary, to get a public opinion formed against such  installations.    In a democracy, it is fundamental,  according to Mr. Prashant Bhushan, that all vital  informations relating to the governance of the country be  disclosed so as to enable the citizenry of India to  ascertain their right of information as to whether the  international standards relating to safety are being  maintained or not.   

       Relying upon or on the basis of the decisions of this  Court in State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain & Ors. [1975 (3) SCR  333], S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another [1981 (Supp)  SCC 87], Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others Vs. Union of India  and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 306] and Union of India Vs.  Association for Democratic Reforms and Another [(2002) 5 SCC  294], the learned counsel would submit that the provisions  contained in Section 18 of the Act are not valid law  imposing reasonable restriction on such freedom in the  interest of the State.  Drawing our attention to several  Articles, the learned counsel would contend that reluctance  on the part of the authorities of the plants to disclose any  information purported to be in terms of the order made under  Section 18 of the Act do not sub-serve any public interest.   Mr. Prashant Bhushan would argue that from a perusal of the  aforementioned articles, it would appear that various  irregularities have been committed as regard strict  enforcement and/or compliance of safety regulations not only  resulting in accidents but also receiving radiations beyond  the permissible limits by the wormen.  The learned counsel  would contend that the power plants of the country in the  matter of discharge of nuclear radiations do not fulfill the  requirements of the IAEA Standards.  A large number of  accidents, Mr. Prashant Bhushan would urge, occurring in the  said plants also had gone unreported.

       Mr. Bhushan would submit that the information as regard  design and other details of the plants are available on  Internet and, thus, there does not exist any reason as to  why the other relevant informations should be withheld only  on the spacious plea of likelihood of sabotage as a result  whereof an important right of a citizen to know about vital  informations like safety of the workers as also the people  living nearby has been denied.  It was urged that in any  event those parts of the report which do not satisfy the  secrecy of the State test should be disclosed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 25  

       Drawing our attention to Section 18 of the said Act,  the learned counsel would submit that as thereby unguided,  unbriddled and wide power had been conferred upon the   Central Government, the same must be held to be ultra vires  the Constitution of India.

       Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned Attorney General appearing  on behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, would  urge that from the affidavits filed before the High Court it  would appear that hardly any accident of serious nature had  taken place in India.  Mr. Sorabjee would submit that right  of information as contained in Clause (a) of Clause (1) of  Article 19 is subject to reasonable restrictions contained  in Clause (2) thereof.  The right of information, it was  contended, cannot be exercised in abstract and must be  considered in the context in which such right is being  claimed.  A matter which is sensitive by its very character,  the learned Attorney General would argue, cannot be subject  matter of a right of information.  Drawing our attention to  a chart, the learned counsel would submit that the Central  Government as also the AERB are aware of the safety measures  required to be taken.  The AERB.  Mr. Sorabjee would submit,  being consisting of eminent persons who are generally  independent not only monitor the working of the plants but  also take strict measures as regards safety operations  thereof.   

       The learned Attorney General, citing the following   example;

"A single pump could handle the cooling  operations for a reactor.  Normally,  there are two pumps, so that even if one  fails the other could do the job.   However, in view of the fact that this  is a safety-critical component, a safety  recommendation could be to have a third  pump.  Or replacement of Inlet Manifold,  or replacement of Emergency Condenser  Tube,"                 contended that the report of the A.E.R.B. contains  such suggestion which cannot be termed as deficiencies.           The learned Attorney General would argue that if the  report is disclosed, the knowledge of the datas containing  therein pertaining to inventories and contents of spent  fuel, reprocessing waste, etc., gathered therefrom could  facilitate a reverse calculation about the country’s nuclear  programme potential in furtherance whereof the enemies of  the nation would be able to estimate and monitor the  strategic activities of the plants.  It was urged that no  radioactive waste is disposed of and the same is recycled.   

       Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the learned senior counsel  appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent drew our  attention to various affidavits affirmed by the High Court  and submitted that from a perusal thereof it would appear  that the necessary disclosures of information have already  been made.  The learned counsel would submit that if the  AERB itself has brought the report into existence the same  would show in no unmistakable terms  that they are alive to  the realities.  The Courts, Mr. Dipankar Gupta would urge,  would intervene only in a case where the statutory bodies  are not active and the same being not the case  the impugned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 25  

judgment need not be interfered with.

The Board:

AERB is a statutory body. The following are its  functions :

(i)     The jurisdiction of AERB covers installations such  as nuclear power stations, nuclear fuel fabrication,  heavy water plants, uranium mines, thorium  processing units etc. and all installations in which  radiation is used for medical, industrial or  research purposes (except Bhabha Atomic Research  Centre and its facilities, due to their special  nature). (ii)    AERB is manned by some of the nation’s top experts  in the relevant fields.  It is also supported by  various experts belonging to reputed academic  institutions and other government agencies.  AERB  thus draws on the expertise and knowledge-base  available all over the country. (iii)   The Board issues different authorizations at each  stage such as siting, construction, commissioning  operating and decommissioning of nuclear plants and  installations.  The AERB licenses nuclear engineers  at different levels, such as Reactor Operator, Shift  Charge Engineers, Control Engineers, etc.  Units are  permitted to function only if the stipulated number  of licensed personnel are available in every shift. (iv)    Apart from the Safety Committees of the units  concerned, AERB has evolved a multi-disciplinary 3- tier safety review procedure to enforce safety  stipulations in nuclear installations.  The first  tier is at the plant level; the next at the  Specialists’ Committees level; and the third at the  Board level. (v)     The Board has set up 2 Specialists’ Committees: the  Safety Review Committee for Operating Plants  (SARCOP) and the Safety Review Committee for  Applications of Radiation (SARCAR).  These consist  of scientists and technologists from different  disciplines SARCOP deals with operating plants of  the Department, and SARCAR deals with radiation  installations for medical, industrial and research  purposes.  The specialists’ committees meet  regularly to review the safety status. (vi)    The AERB itself has 7 Technical Divisions, with over  a hundred full-time scientists, engineers and  technologists with wide experience and expertise in  their relevant fields.  AERB has also set up its own  Safety Research Institute at Kalpakkam. (vii)   AERB uses many inputs to assess the safety status of  the plants/ installations.  These include reports of  inspection by AERB staff, radiation dose records and  environmental monitoring reports. (viii)  Each nuclear installation has an independent  Health Physics set-up to constantly monitor the  radiation dose to workers, and also an Environmental  Survey Laboratory which continuously collects  thousands of samples of food, water, air and  sediment to monitor radioactivity releases to the  environment. (ix)    AERB has prescribed limits for discharges and  ensures that the radiation releases are well within  the prescribed limits.  The limits prescribed are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 25  

based on international recommendations, and in all  cases are either equal to or more stringent than  these. (x)     Apart from this standard procedure, AERB can also  act suo moto, or on a complaint from a bona fide  member of the public. (xi)    As part of the Public Information Programme, AERB  issues a quarterly Newsletter, and an Annual Report.   Based on the continuous evaluation of the safety  status of nuclear power plants, extracts of relevant  records are published in the Annual Report of the  AERB.  Press releases on the regulatory activities  of AERB are issued periodically.

       It is not in dispute that the President by a  notification dated 15th November, 1983 issued under  Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act constituted the AERB.   It being a statutory body has the powers to lay down the  safety standards and frame rules and regulations under the  Act as regard the regulatory and/or safety aspects of the  installations generating electrical energy.  Heretobefore we  have noticed the duties and functions of the Board which are  of varying nature.  The Board is an independent body and out  of the present composition thereof except one Mr. Sharma,  nobody is an employee of the Central Government.  The Board  is responsible to the Atomic Energy Commission which has  been reconstituted by reason of a notification dated 11th  July, 2003.  The executive function of the Board is vested  in its Chairman.  From a perusal of the powers and functions  of the Board, it is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the  Board except for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre monitors and  reviews the working of all nuclear installations in India  inter alia with reference to safety aspects.  It upgrades  and amends the safety standards and procedures and  prescribes, and supervises implementation of such standards  and procedures by the management of the nuclear  installations.  It is also not in dispute that safety issues  in DAE installations has been prepared by the Board based on  the recommendations of various Safety Review Committees.   They had all along been classified as "Secret". The report  pertains to the nuclear installations in the country which,  according to the respondents, include several sensitive  facilities carrying out the activities of highly classified  nature.  The Board, make periodic assessment of the safety  status of the installations and its suggestions as regard  modifications and improvements to upgrade their safety  status to the maximum extent are implemented.

A.E.R.B. REPORT :

       As regards, the Annual Report 1995-96 of AERB which was  the subject matter of the writ petition it has been stated  in the counter affidavit that they can be classified in four  categories:

Category 1:     Hardware related issues leading to  replacement of  defective components; Category 2:     Ageing relating issues; Category 3:     Confidence building exercises involving some   analytical studies; Category 4:     Upgradation of safety standards in plants  that have  been built to earlier safety  standards.

VIRES OF SECTION 18 OF THE ACT :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 25  

The contentions raised by the parties as regard non- disclosure of the report are required to be determined in  the aforementioned context.  Section 18 of the Act contains  an enabling provision.  Pursuant to or in furtherance of the  said provision, the Central Government has issued an order  on or about 4th February, 1975 restricting disclosure of  certain information mentioned therein except with the prior  permission of the Central Government.  

       The question as to whether a statute is ultra vires  Constitution of India having conferred unguided, uncanalised  or wide power cannot be determined in vacuum.  It has to be  considered having regard to the text and context of the  State as also the character thereof.  It deals with a  sensitive subject.

       Section 18 has been enacted for the purposes specified  therein.  It is well-settled that guidelines for enacting  the said provision must be found out from the subject matter  covering the field.  For the said purpose even the preamble  of the Act may be looked into.  

       The notification of discovery of uranium or thorium,  control over mining operations, the disposal of uranium,  power to obtain information are within the scope and ambit  of the said Act.  Section 13 provides for informations as  regard,  contracts.  Section 14 postulates control over  production and use of atomic energy.  Restrictions as regard   disclosure of information as contained in Section 18 are not  vague or wide in nature.  It specifies the areas where such  disclosures are prohibited.  The powers of the Central  Government to make an order in terms thereof are, thus,  limited.

       It is not a case where as in Hamdard Dawakhana and  Another Vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1960 SC 554] or  Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi  [(2003) 7 SCC 151] the Central Government has been conferred  with a wide uncanalised and unguided power.  It is also not  a case where the words employed in the provision provide for    no criteria nor can it be said that no  standard has been  laid down by the Parliament therefor. It is furthermore not  a case where principles on which the power of the Central  Government are to be exercised have not been disclosed.  By  reason of the Act, essential legislative functions have also  not been delegated.  

       We do not think that having regard to the purport and  object of the said Act, the provisions of Section 18 have  bestowed unguided and uncanalised powers on the Central  Government.  Sections 18 and 3 of the Atomic Energy Act had  to be enacted by the Parliament as in wrong hands the  information can pose a danger not only to the security of  the State but to the public at large.   

       Reference, in this connection, may be made to a  decision of this Court in Organon (India) Ltd. (now known as  Infar (India) Ltd. And Another vs. Collector of Excise and  Others [(1995) Supp.(1) SCC 53]  wherein this Court relying  on Harishankar Bagla vs. State of M.P. [(1955) 1 SCR 380],  Delhi Laws Act case [1972, 1951 SCR 747] and State of Tamil  Nadu vs. Hind Stone [(1981) 2 SCC 205], wherein this held  that the provisions of Opium Act furnished sufficient  guidance in the matter of making rules under Section 5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 25  

thereof.             The statutory scheme contained in the provisions of the  Act, the rules framed thereunder, composition of the Atomic  Energy Commission and AERB leave no manner of doubt that the  effective functions of the nuclear power plants are  sensitive in nature.  The functions of the Board are varied  and wide.  Only out of certain functions of the Board, some  have been marked as "Secret" which fulfilled the statutory  criteria laid down under Section 18 of the Act.  A statute  carries with it a presumption of constitutionality.  Such a  presumption extends also in relation to a law which has been  enacted for imposing reasonable restrictions in the  fundamental right.            A further presumption may also be drawn that the  statutory authority would not exercise the power  arbitrarily.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section 18 is  not unconstitutional and a valid piece of legislation.

RIGHT OF INFORMATION:                  Right of information is a facet of ’speech and  expression’ as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution of India. Right of information, thus,  indisputably is a fundamental right.  

In 1948, the United Nations proclaimed a Universal  Declaration of Human Rights.  It was followed by the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (ratified in 1978).  Article 19 of the Covenant declares  that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and  expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinion  without interference, and to seek, and receive and impart  information and ideas through any media and regardless of  frontiers."

       A similar enunciation is to be found in the declaration  made by the European Convention of Human Rights (1950).   Article 10 of that declaration guarantees inter alia, "not  only the freedom of the Press to inform the public but also  the right of the public to be informed."

       In keeping with the spirit of the Universal Declaration  of 1948, the Preamble of the Constitution of India embodies  a solemn resolve of its people to secure, inter alia, to its  citizens, liberty of thought and expression.  In pursuance  of this supreme objective, Article 19(1)(a) guarantees to  the citizens, the right to "freedom of speech and  expression" as one of the fundamental rights listed in Part  III of the Constitution.  These rights have been advisedly  set out in broad terms leaving scope for their expansion and  adaptation, through interpretation, to the changing needs  and evolving notions of a free society.

In Raj Narain (supra), the Constitution Bench  considered a question-whether privilege can be claimed by  the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 123 of the  Evidence Act in respect of what has been described for the  sake of brevity to be the Blue Book summoned from the  Government of Uttar Pradesh and certain documents summoned  from the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Uttar  Pradesh? The Court observed as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 25  

"In a government of responsibility like  ours, where all the agents of the public  must be responsible for their conduct,  there can but few secrets. The people of  this country have a right to know every  public act, everything that is done in a  public way, by their public  functionaries. They are entitled to know  the particulars of every public  transaction in all its bearing...."

       In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and  Others etc. Vs. Union of India and others [(1985) 1 SCC  641], this Court dealt with the validity of customs duty on  the newsprint in context of Article 19(1)(a). The Court  observed (in para 32) thus:  "The purpose of the press is to advance  the public interest by publishing facts  and opinions without which a democratic  electorate cannot make responsible  judgments..."

       The Court further observed:

"...The public interest in freedom of  discussion (of which the freedom of the  press is one aspect) stems from the  requirement that members of a democratic  society should be sufficiently informed  that they may influence intelligently  the decisions which may affect  themselves." (Per Lord Simon of  Glaisdale in Attorney-General v. Times  Newspapers Ltd. (1973) 3 All ER 54).  Freedom of expression, as learned  writers have observed, has four broad  social purposes to serve: (i) it helps  an individual to attain self-fulfilment,  (ii) it assists in the discovery of  truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity  of an individual in participating in  decision-making and (iv) it provides a  mechanism by which it would be possible  to establish a reasonable balance  between stability and social change. All  members of society should be able to  form their own beliefs and communicate  them freely to others. In sum, the  fundamental principle involved here is  the people’s right to know. Freedom of  speech and expression should, therefore,  receive a generous support from all  those who believe in the participation  of people in the administration...."

       In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,  Government of India and Others v. Cricket Association of  Bengal and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 161], this Court summarised  the law on the freedom of speech and expression under  Article 19(1)(a) as restricted by Article 19(2) thus:-  "The freedom of speech and expression  includes right to acquire information  and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech  and expression is necessary, for self- fulfilment. It enables people to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 25  

contribute to debate on social and moral  issues. It is the best way to find a  truest model of anything, since it is  only through it that the widest possible  range of ideas can circulate. It is the  only vehicle of political discourse so  essential to democracy. Equally  important is the role it plays in  facilitating artistic and scholarly  endeavours of all sorts"  

       This Court further dealt with the right of telecast  holding:- "In a team event such as cricket,  football, hockey etc., there is both  individual and collective expression. It  may be true that what is protected by  Article 19(1)(a) is an expression of  thought and feeling and not of the  physical or intellectual prowess or  skill. It is also true that a person  desiring to telecast sports events when  he is not himself a participant in the  game, does not seek to exercise his  right of self-expression. However, the  right to freedom of speech and  expression also includes the right to  educate, to inform and to entertain and  also the right to be educated, informed  and entertained. The former is the right  of the telecaster and the latter that of  the viewers. The right to telecast  sporting event will therefore also  include the right to educate and inform  the present and the prospective  sportsmen interested in the particular  game and also to inform and entertain  the lovers of the game. Hence, when a  telecaster desires to telecast a  sporting event, it is incorrect to say  that the free-speech element is absent  from his right."

       In Dinesh Trivedi (supra), this Court held:  "18. The case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of  India [1981 Supp SCC 87], decided by a  seven-Judge Constitution Bench of this  Court, is generally considered as having  broken new ground and having added a  fresh, liberal dimension to the need for  increased disclosure in matters relating  to public affairs, In that case, the  consensus that emerged amongst the  Judges was that in regard to the  functioning of Government, disclosure of  information must be the ordinary rule  while secrecy must be an exception,  justifiable only when it is demanded by  the requirement of public interest. The  Court held that the disclosure of  documents relating to the affairs of  State involves two competing dimensions  of public interest, namely, the right of  the citizen to obtain disclosure of  information, which competes with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 25  

right of the State to protect the  information relating to its crucial  affairs. It was further held that, in  deciding whether or not to disclose the  contents of a particular document, a  Judge must balance the competing  interests and make his final decision  depending upon the particular facts  involved in each individual case. It is  important to note that it was conceded  that there are certain classes of  documents which are necessarily required  to be protected, e.g. Cabinet Minutes,  documents concerning the national  safety, documents which affect  diplomatic relations or relate to some  State secrets of the highest importance,  and the like in respect of which the  Court would ordinarily uphold  Government’s claim of privilege.  However, even these documents have to be  tested against the basic guiding  principle which is that wherever it is  clearly contrary to the public interest  for a document to be disclosed, then it  is in law immune from disclosure. (paras  73 and 74 at pp. 284-286)  19. What then is the test ? To ensure  the continued participation of the  people in the democratic process, they  must be kept informed of the vital  decisions taken by the Government and  the basic thereof. Democracy, therefore,  expects openness and openness is a  concomitant of a free society. Sunlight  is the best disinfectant. But it is  equally important to be alive to the  dangers that lie ahead. It is important  to realise that undue popular pressure  brought to bear on decision-makers in  Government can have frightening side- effects. If every action taken by the  political or executive functionary is  transformed into a public controversy  and made subject to an enquiry to soothe  popular sentiments, it will undoubtedly  have a chilling effect on the  independence of the decision-maker who  may find it safer not to take any  decision. It will paralyse the entire  system and bring it to grinding halt. So  we have two conflicting situations  almost enigmatic and we think the answer  is to maintain a fine balance which  would serve public interest."  

       The aforementioned decisions came up for consideration  before this Court in Association for Democratic Reforms and  Another (supra) wherein the question which arose for  consideration was as to the candidates contesting election  to Parliament and to the State Legislatures and the parties  they represent "1. Whether the candidate is accused of  any offence(s) punishable with  imprisonment? If so, the details

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 25  

thereof.  2. Assets possessed by a candidate, his  or her spouse and dependant relations?  3. Facts giving insight to candidate’s  competence, capacity and suitability for  acting as parliamentarian or legislator  including details of his/her educational  qualifications;  4. Information which the election  commission considers necessary for  judging the capacity and capability of  the political party fielding the  candidate for election to Parliament or  the State Legislature."           The Court opined that having regard to the right of  information obtaining in Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of  India, the election petitioner can ask for such directions.

It was held that the right to get information in a  democracy is recognized all throughout and it is a natural  right flowing from the concept of democracy. A reference to  Articles 19 (1) and (2) of the International Convention on  Civil and Political Rights can be made in this regard.  Moreover Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution  provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voters’  speech or expression in the case of election would include  casting of votes, that is to say, that the voter speaks out  or expresses by casting a vote. For this purpose,  information about the candidate to be selected is a must.  (See Paras 46 (5), 7 and 23).

       Unlike Constitutions of some other developed countries,  however, no fundamental right in India is absolute in  nature.  Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on such  fundamental rights.  Clause (2) of Article 19 of the  Constitution reads thus:

"Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause  (1) shall affect the operation of any  existing law, or prevent the State from  making any law, in so far as such law  imposes reasonable restrictions on the  exercise of the right conferred by the  said sub-clause in the interests of the  sovereignty and integrity of India, the  security of the State, friendly  relations with foreign States, public  order, decency or morality, or in  relation to contempt of court,  defamation or incitement to an  offence."

       Every right - legal or moral - carries with it a  corresponding obligation.  It is subject to several  exemptions/ exceptions indicated in broad terms.  Generally,  the exemptions/ exceptions under those laws entitle the  government to withhold information relating to the following  matters: (i)     International relations; (ii)    National Security (including defence) and public  safety; (iii)   Investigation, detection and prevention of crime; (iv)    Internal deliberations of the government; (v)     Information received in confidence from a source

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 25  

outside the government; (vi)    Information, which, if disclosed, would violate the  privacy of individual; (vii)   Information of an economic nature, (including Trade  Secrets) which, if disclosed, would confer an unfair  advance on some person or concern, or, subject some  person or government to an unfair disadvantage; (viii)  Information which is subject to a claim of legal  professional privilege, e.g., communication between  a legal adviser and the client; between a physician  and the patient; (ix)    Information about scientific discoveries.

       The Atomic Energy Act is not an antiquated statute.   There exists a relationship between the right to know and  freedom of speech.  "Right to speech and publish does not  carry with it an unrestricted right to gather information".   (See Zenul Vs. Rusk, 14 L.Ed. 2d 179 at 190)

       The U.S. Supreme Court in Kleindienst Vs. Mandal, 33  Law. Ed. 2d 683 held that the First Amendment guarantees no  independent and enforceable right against the government’s  bona fide exercise of discretion in the exclusion of aliens.

       Both in Raj Narain (supra) and S.P. Gupta (supra) this  Court was silent on the relationship between the  restrictions which should be placed on the right to know and  the restrictions existing under Article 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution.                  In United States Vs. Richardson, 41 L. Ed. 2d 678, the  respondent, a taxpayer sought to obtain from the government  information concerning detailed expenditure of the Central  Intelligence Agency but the same was denied on the ground of  ’lack of standing’.

       A reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right  is always permissible in the interest of the security of the  State.

       It has not been contended nor could it be contended  that the operation and functioning of a nuclear plant is not  sensitive in nature.  Any information relating to the  training features processes or technology cannot be  disclosed as it may be vulnerable to sabotage.  As rightly  pointed out by the learned Attorney General, knowledge of  specific data may enable the enemies of the nation to  estimate and monitor strategic activities.  As fissile  materials are used in fuels although the nuclear plants are  engaged in commercial activities, the contents of the fuel  discharged or any other details must be held to be matters  of sensitive character.

       Before the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, several  affidavits have been filed showing the extent of disclosures  made.  The Board also publishes annual reports as also  quarterly newsletters.  The informations which are not  classified as ’secrets’ or do not come within the purview of  the aforementioned order dated 4th February, 1975 are  published.  If a reasonable restriction is imposed in the  interest of the State by reason of a valid piece of  legislation the Court normally would respect the legislative  policy behind the same.   

The Act provides for reasonable restrictions within the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 25  

meaning of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of  India. EFFECT OF THE ACT:  

Once provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and the order  framed thereunder are held to be intra vires, the only  question which arises for consideration is as to whether  exercise of such powers should be held to be invalid by this  Court.  The jurisdiction of this Court in such matter is  very limited.  The Court will not normally exercise its  power of judicial review in such matters unless it is found  that formation of belief by the statutory authority suffers  from mala fide, dishonesty or corrupt practice.  The order  can be set aside if it is held to be beyond the limits for  which the power has been conferred upon the authorities by  the Legislature or is based on the grounds extraneous to the  legislation and if there are no grounds at all for passing  it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably  arrive at the opinion or satisfaction required thereunder.   No such case has been made out by the appellant.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE:

                Sections 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act read as  follows:

"123. EVIDENCE AS TO AFFAIRS OF STATE.  No one shall be permitted to give any  evidence derived from unpublished  official records relating to any affairs  of State, except with the permission of  the officer at the head of the  department concerned, who shall give or  withhold such permission as he thinks  fit.  162. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.  A witness summoned to produce a document  shall, if it is in his possession or  power, bring it to Court,  notwithstanding any objection which  there may be to its production or to its  admissibility. The validity of any such  objection shall be decided on by the  Court.  The Court, if it sees, fit, may inspect  the document, unless it refers to  matters of State, or take other evidence  to enable it to determine on its  admissibility.  Translation of documents.-If for such a  purpose it is necessary to cause any  document to be translated, the Court  may, if it thinks fit, direct the  translator to keep the contents secret,  unless the document is to be given in  evidence : and, if the interpreter  disobeys such direction, he shall be  held to have committed an offence under  section 166 of the Indian Penal Code,  (45 of 1860)."  

       The legislative policy behind the aforementioned  provisions is no longer res integra.  The State must have  the prerogative of preventing evidence being given on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 25  

matters that would be contrary to public interest.    

       For determining a question when a claim of privilege is  made, the Court is required to pose the following questions:

(1)     Whether the document in respect of which privilege  is claimed, is really a document (unpublished)  relating to any affairs of State?; and (2)     Whether disclosure of the contents of the document  would be against public interest?           When any claim of privilege is made by the State in  respect of any document the question whether the document  belongs to the privileged class has first to be decided by  the court.  The Court cannot hold an enquiry into the  possible injury to public interest which may result from the  disclosure of the document in question.  The claim of  immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest.

       The section does not say who is to decide the  preliminary question, viz. whether the document is one that  relates to any affairs to State, or how is it to be decided,  but the clue in respect thereof can be found in S. 162.   Under S. 162 a person summoned to produce a document is  bound to "bring it into court notwithstanding any objection  which there may be to its production or to its  admissibility.  The validity of any such objection shall be  decided on by the court".  It further says that "the  Court, if it seems fit, may inspect the document, unless it  refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable  it to determine on its admissibility."   

       In order to claim immunity from disclosure of  unpublished State documents, the documents must relate to  affairs of State and disclosure thereof must be against  interest of the State or public interest.

       In Raj Narain (supra), the question was as to whether a  Blue Book, being rules and instructions for the protection  of the Prime Minister when on tour or in travel, providing  for mode and manner in which the security is to be provided  to the Prime Minister is beyond the purview of Section 123  of the Indian Evidence Act or not.  The High Court held that  no privilege can be claimed in relation thereto.   

       Ray, CJ. referring to a large number of decisions  opined that even in an election petition privilege can be  claimed.  It was, however, held:

"The several decisions to which  reference has already been made  establish that the foundation of the law  behind Sections 123 and 162 of the  Evidence Act is the same as in English  law. It is that injury to public  interest is the reason for the exclusion  from disclosure of documents whose  contents if disclosed would injure  public and national interest. Public  interest which demands that evidence be  withheld is to be weighed against the  public interest in the administration of  justice that courts should have the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 25  

fullest possible access to all relevant  materials. When public interest  outweighs the latter, the evidence  cannot be admitted. The Court will  proprio motu exclude evidence the  production of which is contrary to  public interest. It is in public  interest that confidentiality shall be  safeguarded. The reason is that such  documents become subject to privilege by  reason of their contents.  Confidentiality is not a head of  privilege. It is consideration to bear  in mind. It is not that the contents  contain material which it would be  damaging to the national interest to  divulge but rather that the documents  would be of class which demand  protection."

       Mathew, J., however, in his concurring opinion opined  that the question of national importance vis-‘-vis  administration of justice should be the criteria for  determining the claim of privilege stating:

"...But the Executive is not the organ  solely responsible for public  interest. It represents only an  important element in it; but there are  other elements. One such element is  the administration of justice. The  claim of the Executive to have  exclusive and conclusive power to  determine what is in public interest  is a claim based on the assumption  that the Executive alone knows what is  best for the citizen. The claim of the  Executive to exclude evidence is more  likely to operate to subserve a  partial interest, viewed exclusively  from a narrow department angle. It is  impossible for it to see or give equal  weight to another matter, namely, that  justice should be done and seen to be  done. When there are more aspects of  public interest to be considered, the  Court will, with reference to the  pending litigation, be in a better  position to decide whether the weight  of public interest predominates."

       It was opined that merely label given to an executive  is not conclusive in the matter observing:   

"...The documents in this case, class  documents though they may be, are in a  different category, seeking protection,  not as State documents of political or  strategic importance, but as requiring  protection on the ground that ’candour’  must be ensured."                  In S.P. Gupta (supra), this Court while upholding the  aforementioned principles, however, was of the opinion that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 25  

there can be a class of documents in respect whereof  privilege can be claimed stating:

"In other words, if injury to public  interest is the foundation of this  immunity from disclosure, when once the  court has inquired into the question and  found that the disclosure of the  document will injure public interest and  therefore it is a document relating to  affairs of State, it would in most cases  be a futile exercise for the head of the  department to consider and decide  whether its disclosure should be  permitted as he would be making an  enquiry into the identical question."  

       Bhagwati, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was)  observed:  

"The basic question to which the court  would therefore have to address itself  for the purpose of deciding the validity  of the objection would be whether the  document relates to affairs of State or  in other words, it is of such a  character that its disclosure would be  against the interest of the State or the  public service and if so, whether the  public interest in its non-disclosure is  so strong that it must prevail over the  public interest in the administration of  justice and on that account, it should  not be allowed to be disclosed. The  final decision in regard to the validity  of an objection against disclosure  raised under Section 123 would always be  with the court by reason of Section  162."

       Analysing the provisions of Sections 123 and 162 of the  Indian Evidence Act, it was opined:  

"The court has thus to perform a  balancing exercise and after weighing  the one competing aspect of public  interest against the other, decide where  the balance lies. If the court comes to  the conclusion that, on the balance, the  disclosure of the document would cause  greater injury to public interest than  its non-disclosure, the court would  uphold the objection and not allow the  document to be disclosed but if, on the  other hand, the court finds that the  balance between competing public  interests lies the other way, the court  would order the disclosure of the  document. This balancing between two  competing aspects of public interest has  to be performed by the court even where  an objection to the disclosure of the  document is taken on the ground that it  belongs to a class of documents which  are protected irrespective of their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 25  

contents, because there is no absolute  immunity for documents belonging to such  class."

CONCLUSION :

       Keeping in view the purport and object for which the  disclosure of the Report of the Board has been withheld, we  are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this  Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under  Article 136 of the Constitution of India.  We may record  that the learned Attorney General had made an offer to place  the Report before us in a sealed cover.  We do not think  that in this case, perusal of the report by the Court is  necessary.  We are also satisfied that the order issued by  the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act and its  claim of privilege do not suffer from any legal infirmity  warranting interference with the High Court judgment by us.   

       For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in  these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. No costs.