supreme court: centre can't withhold documents under rti citing national security, says sc | india news - times of india - where can i buy a document camera

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that if it is determined that the retention of this information is more harmful than the disclosure of this information, the center cannot refuse to disclose the documents under the rrti act on the grounds of national security.
This is Judge K. M. Joseph at 38-
Page's separate but agreed judgment, in which the Supreme Court allowed a plea of guilty under leaked documents, sought to review its judgment on the French Rafale fighter transaction.
It rejected the government's initial objection to their claim of "privilege.
Judge Joseph said by section 8 that the act on the rrti (2)
Giving citizens the "priceless right to dress them", even in terms of national security and matters related to foreign countries, the right to request information.
"There is no doubt that the information is not provided solely for inquiry.
"The applicant must prove that concealing this information is more harmful than disclosing it," Judge Joseph said . ".
He said that the premise of disclosure on issues involving security and relations with foreign countries is public interest.
The right to justice cannot be changed.
This is inalienable.
Its demands on other interests are so strong that it becomes the foundation of all civilized nations.
The evolution of the law itself is based on the recognition of just rights as an indispensable symbol of a fully developed country.
The preamble of the Constitution declares Justice
Social, economic, or political goals.
Each state has an obligation to establish a fair and effective judicial system.
"In fact, judicial review is considered a fundamental feature of the Constitution," he added . ".
The judge said Section 8 (2)
There is a legal revolution in the act of the rrti, because in the sub-section(1)
In Section 8 or the Official Secrets Act, 1923 may prevent access to information if the public interest that is made public conceals damage to the protected interest.
Judge Joseph said that Section 24 of the Anti-Corruption Act also emphasized the importance attached to the unremitting struggle against corruption and human rights violations.
"The most important aspect of the judicial delivery system is the ability of one party to successfully establish a case based on material.
Anyone, with the exception, can initiate the criminal law, which is beyond doubt.
However, it is equally indisputable that in the seemingly insurmountable obstacles faced by the parties to the proceedings, there is a limitation of the ability to prove the case, and more importantly, the limitation of relevant evidence.
Thus, the ability to obtain evidence is the most important aspect of ensuring that truth and justice prevail.
Therefore, section 8 (2)
It must be seen in the above context.
"Its impact on the operation of the privilege shield is clear and correct," he said . ".
He said that under the rrti act, citizens can obtain a certified copy of a document, even if the matter involves security or relations with a foreign country.
Judge Joseph said that if such documents were to be brought before the court, then certainly the government could not make a request for privilege.
"It is clear that under the Information Rights Act, citizens may obtain a certified copy of a document under article 8 (2)
Even if the matter involves security or relations with a foreign country, it is subject to the act if a case is brought under the Act.
"If such a document is presented, the claim of privilege will certainly not lie," Justice Joseph said . ".
The judge said that although the right to obtain information on the matter in question under article 8 does not have the right to be unqualified (1)(a)
In the TI act, the court cannot be completely unaffected by the new system introduced by Parliament under the TI act on the question of the requirement of privilege.
It is worth noting that, under the rrti act, an officer of the department is allowed access to information under the act on matters belonging to even under article 8 (1)(a)
If the case is made under Article 8 (2).
He said that the background of the material considered by the court is relevant, and there is no doubt that the way evidence is obtained ---
It was purchased in an illegal way. -
It is usually not very important.
The judge said that the three documents have been published in India and have indeed not been officially published, but the correctness of the contents of the documents themselves has not been questioned.
"In a sense, the case does not strictly involve the requirement of privilege because the petitioner did not ask the respondent to produce the original, and as has been noted, the state does not object to the content of the correctness document.
The respondent's request was to remove the file from the record.
"In the writ petition that gave rise to the examination, the complaint was that the supreme power class had serious wrongdoing, and the petitioner, among other things, sought to take action under the provisions of the Crime Prevention Act, Judge Joseph said.
Download the Times of India news app for the latest Indian News.