2004 (1) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the document in respect of which privilege is claimed, is really a document (unpublished) relating to any affairs of State? Whether disclosure of the contents of the document would be against public interest? Held that - 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. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Right to Information as a Fundamental Right
2. Disclosure of Information on Nuclear Safety
3. Validity of Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act
4. Role and Independence of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
5. Claim of Privilege by the State

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Information as a Fundamental Right:
The judgment acknowledges that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Clause (2) of Article 19 in the interest of the State. The balance between the right to information and state interests is central to this case.

2. Disclosure of Information on Nuclear Safety:
The appellants sought disclosure of information regarding safety violations and defects in nuclear installations, relying on reports from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and statements from a former AERB Chairman. The respondents argued that the information was classified as 'Secret' under a notification issued pursuant to Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and its disclosure would be prejudicial to national security.

3. Validity of Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act:
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 18, arguing it conferred unguided and wide powers on the Central Government. The court held that Section 18 is a valid piece of legislation, providing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the State. The court emphasized that the Act's guidelines are clear and the powers conferred are not uncanalised or unguided.

4. Role and Independence of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB):
The court detailed the functions and independence of the AERB, highlighting its role in ensuring safety in nuclear installations. The AERB is a statutory body responsible for laying down safety standards and monitoring compliance. The court noted that the AERB's actions, including the preparation of safety reports, demonstrate its commitment to its duties.

5. Claim of Privilege by the State:
The court examined the State's claim of privilege under Sections 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act, which restricts the disclosure of documents related to State affairs. The court upheld the State's claim, agreeing that the disclosure of the AERB report would be against public interest and could jeopardize national security. The court emphasized that the judiciary should respect the legislative policy behind such restrictions unless there is evidence of mala fide or corrupt practices.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment. It concluded that the right to information is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially concerning sensitive information related to national security. The court found no legal infirmity in the State's claim of privilege and the non-disclosure of the AERB report. The judgment reinforces the balance between transparency and national security, validating the restrictions imposed under the Atomic Energy Act.

← Previous Next →