NDLI: Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India s.123 1923 Evidence Act Official Secrets Act 1872 ss.3 and 5 Review petition Art.19(2)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Review Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Official Secrets Act, 1923: ss.3 and 5 – Review petition – Preliminary objection raised by the respondent challenging the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that the three documents appended to the review petition and relied upon by the review petitioners were unauthorisedly removed from the office of the Ministry of Defence and and for the said reason, the review petition was not maintainable as said act violated the provisions of ss.3 and 5 of Official Secrets Act – The said three documents were admittedly published in two newspapers on different dates – Held: No law enacted by Parliament was brought to notice which specifically barred or prohibited the publication of such documents on any of the grounds mentioned in Art.19(2) – Insofar as the claim of privilege is concerned, on the very face of it, s.123 of the Evidence Act, 1872 relates to unpublished public records – A claim of immunity against disclosure under s.123 of the Evidence Act has to be essentially adjudged on the touchstone of public interest and to satisfy itself that public interest is not put to jeopardy by requiring disclosure, the Court may even inspect the document in question though the said power is to be sparingly exercised – Such an exercise, however, was not necessary in the instant case as the document(s) being in public domain and within the reach and knowledge of the entire citizenry, a practical and common sense approach lead to the obvious conclusion that it would be meaningless and an exercise in utter futility for the Court to refrain from reading and considering the said document or from shutting out its evidentiary worth and value – Preliminary objection questioning maintainability of review petitions is dismissed – The review petitions are to be adjudicated on their own merit by taking into account the relevance of the contents of the three documents appended to the review petition – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.123 – Constitution of India – Art.19(2).(Per Ranjan Gogoi, CJI) Evidence Act, 1872: s.123 – Claim for privilege, waiver of – Held: Claim for privilege under s.123 being based on public policy cannot be waived – The basis for the claim of privilege is and can only be public interest. (Per K.M. Joseph, J.) Press: Freedom of expression – The right of the Press in India is no higher than the right of the citizens under Art.19(1)(a) and is traced to the same provision – If freedom is enjoyed by the Press without a deep sense of responsibility, it can weaken democracy – Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a). (Per K.M. Joseph, J.) Jurisprudence: Crown privilege – Law in India and in England – Change introduced by the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Discussed – Under the law relating to privilege, there are two classes of documents which ordinarily form the basis of privilege – In the first category, the claim for privilege is raised on the basis of contents of the particular documents – The second head under which privilege is ordinarily claimed is in case of document which falls in a class of documents which entitles it to protection from disclosure and production – When a document falls in such a class, ordinarily courts are not required to consider the contents – When privilege was claimed as for instance in the matter relating to security of the nation, traditionally, courts both in England and in India have held that such documents would fall in the class of documents which entitles it to protection from production – Under s.8(1)(a), information, the disclosure of which will prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security and strategic scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or information leading to incitement of an offence are ordinarily exempt from the obligation of disclosure but even in respect of such matters, Parliament has advanced the law in the form of s.8(2) by giving recognition to the principle that disclosure of information could be refused only on the foundation of public interest being jeopardised – In other words, access to information is allowed in respect of matters falling even under s.8(1)(a), if case is made out under s.8(2) – Thus, the RTI Act through s.8(2) has conferred upon the citizens a priceless right by clothing them with the right to demand information even in respect of such matters as security of the country and matters relating to relation with foreign state – In such case, the applicant has to establish that withholding of such information produces greater harm than disclosing it – Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss.8(1)(a), 8(2). (Per K.M. Joseph, J.)
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 505
Petitioner	Yashwant Sinha & Ors.
Respondent	Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.
SCR	[2019] 5 S.C.R. 638
Judgement Date	2019-04-10
Case Number	46

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr

M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. Through. Its President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

शासकीय गुप्‍त बात अधिनियम,1923

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

N. Radhakrishnan @ Radhakrishnan Varenickal Vs. Union of India and Others

State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr

M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. Through. Its President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

शासकीय गुप्‍त बात अधिनियम,1923

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

N. Radhakrishnan @ Radhakrishnan Varenickal Vs. Union of India and Others

State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.