Limits of right to information

OUT OF COURT

The right to information is a precious right of a citizen of a democracy and the law-makers as well as the courts have recently expanded its scope through legislations and judgements.

Though Parliament has passed a law giving the right to the citizens, it has not been enforced for some reason. Some states like Maharashtra and Delhi have their own laws in force. Citizens and babus are experimenting with this newly-acquired statutory right and duty.

However, one of the first judgements of the Supreme Court this year set limits on this right and upheld the claim of privilege of the government to certain documents (People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India).

The petitioner-organisation in this case wanted a report prepared by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board in 1995 made public. It purportedly documented defects in safety precautions in nuclear installations across the country, citing 130 instances that called for concern.

The government countered these charges and asserted that the safety norms are being adhered to and the document was privileged. The court had to decide whether the citizens had the right to see the report.

The first major case decided by the Supreme Court on privilege was in State of UP vs Raj Narain in 1975. When the stormy petrel of yesteryears wanted the Uttar Pradesh government to produce the "Blue Book" containing rules for the protection of the Prime Minister, the court accepted the claim of privilege. It said that public interest in the disclosure should be weighed against the public interest in not disclosing the document.

However, the scope of the right to information, flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was widened in the same judgement. According to the court, "in a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can but be few secrets. The people of the 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 the 1985 judgement in the Indian Express case, the Supreme Court asserted that the "members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed that they may influence intelligently the decisions that may affect themselves."

In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vs Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), the right was extended to sports and entertainment.

The government refused uplinking facilities to the association and the court had this to say: "The freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate it. It enables people to contribute to debate on social and moral issues... The right to telecast sporting event will therefore also include the right to educate and inform the present and prospective sportsmen and also to inform and entertain the lovers of the game."

There is an obverse side too. The right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Some such restricted areas are national security, prevention of crime, internal deliberations of the government, trade secrets and scientific discoveries.

In such cases, Sections 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act protect documents of this variety. When the government claims privilege for a document, the court will decide whether the disclosure would be in public interest or not.

In the S P Gupta case of 1981, which discussed privilege in detail, the government was directed to disclose certain documents relating to the appointment of judges of the high courts.

In the case of nuclear installations, the Supreme Court felt that it should not interfere. This was not only because the document in question was genuinely privileged according to the legal principles but also because it was convinced from other evidence that the plants met adequate safety standards.

This judgement should be taken as an exception to the present trend of expanding the right to information. An excessive demand can invite such tough rejection.