SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 20-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 195(}-Articles 19(1)(a)(2) and 32-Right of in-
fonnation about govemment decisions and actions-Though a fundamental 
right, not absolute in nature restricted by overriding interest of public security C 
and secrecy-Demand for full-scale disclosure of the "Vohra Committee 
Report" along with supporting mate1ial challenging the authenticity of the 
Report table in the Parliament-Held : Allegation regarding authenticity of the 
Report is baseless---Report tabled in the parliament is genuine, authentic and 
unabridged and also a public document-Full-scale disclosure of the Report 
would be against public interest there[ ore can not be directed to be dis- D 
closed-Creation of an all powerful body like Ombudsman or Lokpal sug-
gested for monitoring investigation involving the kind of nexus between 
politicians, bureaucrats and criminals refe"ed to in the Report-Till its crea-
tion a High Level Committee be appointed by the President of India in con-
sultation with the Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha-Volira E 
Committee Report. 
Official secrets Act, 1923-Sec. 5-Demand for declaring it unconstitu-
tional and unreasonable-Held, Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Official 
Secrets Act need not be examined. 
F 
A member of Parliament filed the present writ petition in public 
interest in conjunction with some non-governmental organisation under 
Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the genuineness of the 
"Vohra Committee Report" tabled in the Parliament on August, 1, 1995 
alleging that it was not the complete report as it was not furnished alilng 
with the supporting materials and it suppressed vital information regard- G 
ing connection between politicians, criminals, bureaucrats and antisocial 
elements. This assertion was based on the statement made in the Lok 
Sabha, a day prior to the publication of the Report by the erstwhile 
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs that the Report extended to about 
hundred pages and the fact that the document placed before the House H 
93 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
numbered only 11.5 pages. Moreover the Report was not in the form of 
continuous paragraphs. The Petitioners urged the Courts to direct the 
Union Government to make public the annexures, memorials and the 
written evidence that were placed before the Committee as well as to reveal 
the names of all bureaucrats, police officials, parliamentarians and judi· 
B 
cial personnel against whom there was tangible evidence. It was also urged 
to direct the Union Government to submit before the court an effective 
package of the follow-up measures proposed to be taken with regard to the 
Report and to declare Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to be 
unconstitutional. 
C 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The allega~ion regarding the authenticity of the Report is 
baseless. There is nothing on record to raise a doubt that the Report, as 
tabled in the Parliament is not genuine, authentic and unabridged. The 
erstwhile Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, in maki~g the statement that 
D the Report was 100 pages long, might have been either misinformed or 
misled. That apart there is no other ground for doubting the genuineness 
of the Report. Since it has been tabled in the Parliament, it now enjoys the 
status of a public document. [105-D-F] 
E 
F 
2.1. The supporting materials placed before the Vohra Committee can 
not be disclosed to the public at large, for the reason that such disclosure 
would be severely injurious to public interest. Though In modern constitution· 
al democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the 
affairs of the Government, like all other rights, even this right has recognised 
limitations; it is by no means absolute. In deciding whether or not to disclose 
the contents of a particular document, relating to the affairs of the State, the 
Court must balance two competing dimensions of public interest, namely the 
right of the citizen to obtain disclosure ofinformation and the right of the State 
to protect the information relating to its cmcial affairs. In transactions which 
have serious public repercussions 011 public security, secrecy can legitimately 
be claimed because it would be then in public interest that such matters are 
G not publicly disclose

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