PEPOLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 06-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PEPOLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 6, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Atomic Energy Act, 1962: 
Section 18-Restriction-On disclosure of information-Power a/Central 
C Government-Held: Central Government empowered to restrict disclosure of 
certain information to the public-Such power neither uncontrolled nor 
unguided. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 19(1) (g). 
Right of information-Nature of-Held: ls a facet of 'speech and 
e'Cpression' and therefore, a fundamental right. 
Right of information-Reasonable restriction on-Imposed by S. 18 of 
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962-Permissibility of-Held: The Act dealt with a 
E restrictive subject-Hence, prohibition of disclosure of information imposed 
by S. 18 a reasonable restrict ion. 
Articles 32 and 226-Judiciai revie11~Scope and power of-Order 
passed by Central Government regarding non-disclosure of certain information 
to the public-Whether amenable to judicial revie11~Held: The Court would 
F not normally exercise its power a/judicial review unless the order suffers 
from mala fide, dishonesty or cormpt practice-The order passed by Central 
Government did not sufjer fi'om such i1?firmities-Hence not inte1fered with. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
G 
Section 123-Evidence as to affi1irs a/State-Documents-Immunity fi'om 
H 
disclosure-Claim of privilege-Held: In order to claim such immunity the 
documents must relate to affairs of State and that such disclosure must be 
against interest of Stale or public interest. 
Interpretation of Statutes:. 
232 
PEPOLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.0.1. 
233 
Constitutionality of an Act-Presumption of-Held: Even extends to a A 
law, which imposes reasonable restrictions on fundamental right. 
How far and to what extent the right to information and the 
restrictions that could be imposed should .be balanced is the question 
involved in these appeals arising out of the impugned judgment of the High 
~u~ 
B 
The appellants contended that the citizens have a right to have access 
to the copies of the AERB report, under Article 19(1)(g) of the 
Constitution, that Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 was invalid 
on the ground that there were no guidelines for the exercise of discretion C 
in notifying a document as a secret document. The High Court dismissed 
the writ petition. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that right of 
information as contained in Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution was 
subject to reasonable restrictions contained in clause (2) thereof; that if D 
the report of AERB was disclosed it would be agai11st the interest of the 
State and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 123 and 162 of the Evidence 
Act, 1872 were attracted. 
Dismiss.ing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The question as to whether a statute is ultra vires the 
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 Statute as also the character thereof. 
1252-DI 
1.2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 deals with a sensitive subject. 
Section 18 of the Act has been enacted for the purpose 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. 1252-El 
2.1. 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 on the fundamental rights. 1253-Fl 
2.2. A further presumption may also be drawn that the statutory 
E 
F 
G 
authority would not exercise the power arbitrarily. (253-F'I 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
3.1. Restrictions as regards 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. 1252-F-CJ 
3.2. Having regard to the purport and object of the Act, the 
B provisions of Section 18 cannot be said to have bestowed unguided and 
uncanalised powers on the Central Government. Sections 18 and 3 of the 
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 also to t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.