[ Secretary General, SC
of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Del. 159 (FB)]
The appeal is against the
order passed by the ld. Single Judge whereby the request of the respondent (a
public person) for supply of information concerning declaration of personal
assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.
One of the issue that arose
for consideration was the meaning of term information u/s.2(f) of the Act. The
Court held that the preamble to the Act says that the Act is passed because
‘democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which
are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold Govt. and
their instrumentalities are accountable to the governed’. The Act restricts the
right to
information to citizens (S. 3). An applicant seeking in formation does not have
to give any reasons
why he/she needs such information except such details as may be necessary for
contracting him/her. Thus, there was no requirement of locus standi for
seeking information.
The Court further held that
the source of right to information does not emanate from the Right to
Information Act. It is a right that emerges form the constitutional guarantees
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Right to Information
Act is not repository of the right to information. Its repository is the
constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The Act is merely an
instrument that lays down statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. Its
overreaching purpose is to facilitate democracy by helping to ensure that
citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the
democratic process and to help the governors accountable to the governed. In
construing such a statute the Court ought to give to it widest operation which
its language will permit. The Court will also not readily read words which are
not there and introduction of which will restrict the rights of citizens for
whose benefit the statute is intended.
The words ‘held by’ or
‘under the control of u/s. 2(j) will include not only information under legal
control of public authority, but also all such information which is otherwise
received or used or consciously retained by the public authority in the course
of its functions and its official capacity. There are any numbers of examples
where there is no legal obligation to provide information to public authorities,
but where such information is provided, the same would be accessible under the
Act. For example, registration of births, deaths, marriages, applications for
election photo identity cards, ration cards, PAN cards, etc.
The apprehension that unless
a restrictive meaning is given to S. 2(1)(j), the notes or jottings by the
Judges or their draft judgments would fall within the purview of the Information
Act was misplaced. Notes taken by the Judges while hearing a case cannot be
treated as final view expressed by them on the case. They are meant only for the
use of Judges and cannot be held to be a part of a record ‘held’ by the public
authority. However, if the Judge turns in notes along with the rest of his files
to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed. It would be
thus retained by the registry. Even the draft judgement signed and exchanged is
not to be considered as final judgments, but only tentative view liable to be
changed. A draft judgment therefore, obviously cannot be said to be information
held by a public authority.
