S.P. GUPTA V. PRESIDENT OF INDIA (1981) Supp SCC 87
FACTS
Across the nation, a plethora of writ petitions were filed in several high courts and one such writ was lodged in the Supreme Court of India. These writs were collectively referred to as "writs of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary." They were prompted by the non-appointment of two judges and the transfer of another judge.
In this case, a critical matter revolved around the validity of the Central Government's decision to refrain from appointing the two judges. The petitioners sought to bolster their argument by requesting access to correspondences between the Law Minister, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and the Chief Justice of India. However, the respondents opposed this request, citing the protection of correspondence under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, which asserts that advice provided by the Council of Ministers to the President of India is not subject to judicial review. Furthermore, the respondents affirmed the validity and applicability of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits the disclosure of evidence from unpublished official records related to state affairs without the consent of the head of the relevant department.
ISSUES:
The case hinges on two critical questions:
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:
The Petitioners placed significant emphasis on their plea for the disclosure of the correspondence. They argued that this correspondence, specifically regarding the non-appointment of judges and the transfer of a judge, should be made public due to apprehensions of arbitrary decision-making, procedural irregularities, and a perceived lack of transparency in the process.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS:
The Respondents countered all the assertions put forth by the Petitioners. They invoked Article 74(2) of the Indian Constitution, contending that any advice provided by the Council of Ministers to the President is beyond the purview of judicial review. Additionally, they cited Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that evidence cannot be presented from unpublished official records without the consent of the relevant department's head. This was their basis for seeking protection for the correspondence in question.
JUDGMENT-
In the present case, the Apex Court of India adopted a nuanced approach to address the issues at hand. It acknowledged the respondents' claim regarding the protection of correspondence but rejected it, asserting that such protection applies only if disclosure is deemed opposite to the public interest and would result in harm. The Court emphasized the importance of an open and collaborative democracy, stressing that public accountability and access to government functioning information are crucial. This principle, derived from the implicit Right to Know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, embodies the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court established that information about government operations should be disclosed as a rule, with exceptions made only when strict public interest necessitates confidentiality. Regarding the respondents' plea for protection under Section 74(2) of The Indian Evidence Act, the Court clarified that while advice from the Council of Ministers to the President is safeguarded, the correspondence itself isn't automatically protected simply because it was referenced in the advice. Furthermore, the opinions of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court do not inherently form part of the advice. The Court also rejected the respondents' reliance on Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, citing the case of State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh to support its position. The Court emphasized that documents embodying Council of ministers' meetings or advice are indeed protected under Section 123. If the head of the concerned department chooses not to permit publication, the Court cannot compel them otherwise. However, in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, the Court upheld a decision by the High Court to disclose an official document, asserting its authority to determine whether a document's non-disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest. In this ongoing case, the respondents' claims can only be challenged on two grounds: an inadequate and effective dialogue between the Central Government and the appropriate judicial authorities, or decisions based on irrelevant grounds. Both of these grounds necessitate the disclosure of the correspondence. The Court had to strike a balance between the principles of justice and the broader public interest. Ultimately, the Court determined that the correspondence was not contrary to the public interest, as the transfer and appointment of judges serve the public domain's interest. Thus, the Court deemed the Central Government's decision to withhold the correspondence unjustified.