Site icon Legal Vidhiya

WITHHOLD THE INFORMATION IN PUBLIC INTEREST

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by S. Simi Sthebiya Mary of sathyabama institute of science and technology an intern under legal vidhiya.

ABSTRACT-

This article will examine the right to access information that is in the public interest. In the administration of justice, these legal theories are essential for striking a balance between the interests of the state and the general public. Understanding the nuances of Indian evidence law requires an in-depth knowledge of State privilege and public interest immunity. Examining the various facets of State privilege and Public interest immunity as they are established by the Indian Evidence Act is the main goal of this study. This research seeks to offer a thorough knowledge of these ideas and their ramifications for the Indian legal system by examining pertinent case law, scholarly opinions, and legislative measures.

INTRODUCTION-

The main laws that control whether and how evidence is used in Indian courts. It offers a thorough framework for figuring out the extent and constraints of evidence in judicial procedures. The Indian Constitution aims to create a democratic system in which there is no question of favoured status or immunity in favour of the state under the equality clauses. The person is always the government. Numerous privileges and immunities are recognised by law and upheld in the government’s favour.

KEYWORD-

Privilege, public interest, evidences, immunity, system, government.

PRIVILEGE-

The right to withhold information or material under specific conditions is known as a privilege, which has been defined as “that which is granted or allowed to any persons, against or beyond the course of ordinary law.” A person has the right to assert that a privilege applies to certain information or material, whether or not they are a party to the proceedings. The individual who has the right to assert a privilege may do so either explicitly or implicitly. A court order’s mandated forced disclosure does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. When a privileged document is accidentally revealed during a hearing, the document may only be used as evidence with the court’s approval.

GOVERNMENTAL RIGHT TO RETAIN DOCUMENTS-

ENGLAND-

In England, a specific privilege known as “crown privilege” allows the monarch to withhold the revelation of certain documents. If it believes that disclosing the information or responding to a query will harm the public interest, it has the right to decline to do so. The premise upon which the rule is built is that the public good is the supreme law. Justice must be served in the public interest, yet it may also necessitate the suppression of pertinent evidence. Even in cases when it is not a party, the crown has the authority to revoke this privilege.

Case law –

In Ellis v. Home Office, a prisoner who was being held pending trial assaulted Ellis. The prisoner who assaulted was being watched because he may have mental health issues. Ellis claimed that prison authorities were negligent, but he was unsuccessful in his lawsuit because the crown asserted its legal privilege without regard for the doctors’ reports. It is argued that the evidence might have been made public without harming the general welfare.

The document was required to be produced in Convay v. Remmer, 1968, as the public interest was not harmed by the revelation. By making this choice, the House of Lords has returned a dangerous executive power to the legal system. Instead of being called a Crown Privilege, the privilege is now referred to as a “public interest” privilege.

INDIA-

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, section 123, recognises the Government’s power to conceal papers from the courts. According to Section 123, no one is allowed to testify based on unpublished official records pertaining to any State issues without the person in charge of the department in question’s consent, which he or she may withhold as he sees fit.       

The basic norm is that both disputing parties must present all pertinent papers they may have in their possession. According to section 114 of the proof Act, an unfavourable inference can be made against a party who fails to provide this proof. The Government benefits greatly from Section 123, which allows it to conceal pertinent material from the Court in the interest of the public without any negative implications if the Court upholds the claim of privilege.

Case law-

Sodhi Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, decided by the supreme court. The respondent in this case, a District & Session Judge, was fired from his position by the President of India. He expressed his opposition to the removal. The council of ministers decided to rehire him after consulting the public service commission in response to the representation. He subsequently filed a lawsuit to have his deportation declared to be invalid and illegal. He demanded the production of specific papers. For them, the state asserted privilege. By a majority vote, the supreme court determined that the relevant documents were exempt from production requirements under section 123 of the Evidence Act and were therefore protected from disclosure.

In the case State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan, Raj Narayan had filed an electoral petition to oust Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi as prime minister. He submitted a request for the production of specific documents throughout the trial. Regarding those materials, the U.P. government asserted privilege. The privilege assertion was denied by the Allahbad High Court. The Supreme Court invalidated the Allahbad decision following an appeal.

DISCLOSURE AND DISCRETION-

A wide range of secret information and materials are protected by the law through statute and common law. Information must be “serious” in the context in which it was disclosed in order for it to qualify as confidential, and it must also be more important than insignificant, at least to the party whose confidence has been or may be violated. A violation of confidentiality will only be permitted by the courts if it serves the greater good. Each situation involves a balancing act to determine whether disclosing the knowledge or keeping it a secret best serves the public interest.

It’s a prevalent misconception that the concept of secrecy is all or nothing; a piece of information is either confidential or not. That is not the situation. The court may permit restricted disclosure, such as to an investigating authority, in exchange for an agreement to use the information in a certain manner. A later examination of the investigation may allow the court to make a decision about any other disclosure-related problems.

The official receiver may be asked to reveal a lot of information, much of which will be confidential (such as the narrative statements and preliminary information questionnaires). The official receiver must weigh the balance of the public interest while determining whether to reveal sensitive material, and may consult Technical Section.

The official receiver must let the court know if he or she believes that any material is secret during court proceedings. The court will determine whether or not to divulge that information.

According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in W v. Egdell [1990] 1 ALL ER 835, the court would prevent the revelation of information in the following situations:

A STATE-

The majority of these benefits are enjoyed by private individuals. For instance, the law grants a person the constitutional right to refrain from implicating himself. It also grants privileged status to private conversations between an attorney and client, a husband and wife, and a select group of other communicants who are involved in particular intimate relationships.1 But in this case, the State is asserting a right to withhold a document or piece of evidence on the grounds that its disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest. This privilege is covered by Section 123 of the Evidence Act, which forbids the use of evidence drawn from unpublished official records pertaining to matters of state without the department head’s consent.

SECTION 124 OF THE IEA STATES: OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS-

No public official may be forced to reveal communications that were given to him in confidence if he believes that doing so would harm the interests of the public.

The two aforementioned sections provide the government the upper hand and a large level of privilege in legal proceedings of any kind, giving it an advantage over private individuals. It is clear from this that both the IEA and the fundamental principles of administrative law that guarantee equity in the administration of justice are in danger. However, even if the right is exercised, the privilege is fundamentally inadmissible in that the courts cannot in these circumstances take the records into consideration for which the privilege is asserted.

SECTION 162 OF THE IEA STATES: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS-

A witness who has been asked to produce a document must do so if it is in his custody or under his control, regardless of any objections that may be raised against its production or admissibility. The Court will consider whether any such objection is valid. In the modern era of the welfare state, the government now has substantial authority to interfere with a citizen’s person or property. Administrative capacity will undoubtedly need to grow more quickly in the future. As a result of the expansion of government activities, the administration has taken over the majority of the tasks that formerly required human effort.

As a result, people are increasingly having interactions with the government, which frequently causes them to feel resentful of the government’s interference and turn to the courts to have their complaints heard. When there is a dispute, the courts use a variety of procedures, and one of the plaintiffs in cases between common people and the government is the common man. On the basis of three main arguments, the Indian courts make decisions about the right to withhold records whenever the issue is brought before them.

The first is the “public interest,” the second is “open government,” which is covered by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech and expression), and the third is outside the purview of Article 21 (which guarantees the right to life), according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

CASE LAW-

In Supreme Court State of Bihar v. Kirpalu Shankar that government records are protected by a privilege and cannot be used as the basis for civil or criminal contempt actions because the privilege is required to preserve the independence of the civil services and the freedom of expression. In a similar vein, the court ruled in Doy Pack systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India that it is the court’s responsibility to forbid document disclosure in cases when Article 74(2) of the Constitution is in effect.

The concept of an open government is directly derived from the right to know, which appears to be implied in the freedom of speech and expression given by Art. 19 (1)(a), according to the ruling in the case of S. P. Gupta v. President of India. Therefore, transparency in government operations must be the rule, and secrecy should only be an exception when it serves the public interest in the strictest sense.

The court must take the approach of minimising the area of secrecy as much as is consistent with the demand of the public interest, constantly keeping in mind that disclosure performs an essential function of the public interest.

Justice Bhagwati noted as a result that:

One of the cornerstones of a democratic state is the citizens’ right to know the real facts about how the government is run. And because of this, there is a growing global need for greater transparency in government.

CONCLUSION-

State privilege is a legal doctrine that gives the government the right to keep some material out of court proceedings in order to safeguard diplomatic relations, executive decision-making, and national security. The public interest in the administration of justice, which mandates that courts have full access to all relevant materials, must be weighed against the public interest that demands that evidence be concealed. The evidence cannot be admitted when the public interest prevails over the later.

REFERENCES-

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version