Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned senior counsel while appearing in support of W.P. No. 208 of 2008 opposed the connected writ petition filed by the WBBSE being W.P. No. 5302 (W) of 2008. He referred to the preamble of the Constitution to emphasize that it seeks to secure liberty of thought and expression. Next, he referred to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and submitted that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 865 : The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain and ors., a citizen of a country has the right to know every public act and for that matter everything done in a public way by public functionaries. According to him, the right to information was available much before the RTI Act came into force and it only provides the machinery for making information available. By relying on the decision reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 : S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, he contended that disclosure of information in regard to functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception. The concept of public interest inheres in furnishing information as sought for by a citizen. There has been a constant demand for openness and transparency in the Government's functioning and a positive participation of the people is necessary for a democratic state. It is healthy to have suspicion and it is for the Government to establish that any and every action taken by it is in public interest and, therefore, there is nothing to hide. Secrecy is an exception for which there must be a justification. Disclosures serve an important aspect of public interest. The RTI Act is not to be read in a manner to curtail rights which the Constitution recognizes for the RTI Act does not say anything contrary to what the Constitution and the rules say. If the information sought for is withheld for no good reason, it would be reasonable to suspect that there is something under the table which is sought to be hidden. He referred to paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 in W.P. 5302 (W) of 2008 to contend that although the WBBSE has claimed exemption in terms of provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, such point was not argued on its behalf which clearly shows that it is itself not sure under which specific provision access to answer scripts may be withheld.

"In a Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security, see New York Times Co. vs. United States, (1971) 29 Law Ed. 822 =403 U.S. 713. To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business, is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self- interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption:

In Assn. for Democratic Reforms (supra), the Apex Court was, inter alia, seized of the issue as to whether before casting votes, the voters have a right to know relevant particulars of the candidates contesting the elections. While deciding the issue, the Apex Court held as follows:

"30. Now we would refer to various decisions of this Court dealing with citizens' right to know, which is derived from the concept of 'freedom of speech and expression'. The people of the country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by the public functionaries. MPs or MLAs are undoubtedly public functionaries. Public education is essential for functioning of the process of popular government and to assist the discovery of truth and strengthening the capacity of an individual in participating in the decision-making process. The decision- making process of a voter would include his right to know about public functionaries who are required to be elected by him.

There is also another significant aspect that needs to be noticed. As soon as information becomes accessible an informed decision could be made by a potential litigant, initially dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, before he takes a plunge to legal recourse. The time, money and effort which are necessarily associated with litigations could be lessened/avoided once greater transparency is assured. Similarly, greater transparency would mean correct, timely and legally sound decisions on the part of the public authorities and its functionaries and thereby the quality of governance, most likely, would improve.