Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 269 (5.93 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975

Public Service Commission U.P. And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 July, 2019

52. While considering the claim of privilege of the documents, this Court has to consider as to whether the record for which the privilege is claimed, the production thereof will result in public injury or the larger public interest will suffer. If the record/ documents relate to the affairs of the State or the security of the State is involved as has been opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Raj Narain's case (supra), where privilege was claimed regarding the Blue Book for the protection of the Prime Minister when on tour or in travel, the privilege could be claimed. However, if the matter merely relates to the selection of the candidates by an authority against which certain allegations were made, the privilege claimed merely on the basis of the fact that it would disclose working of the Commission or the candidates who have been selected or who are already in Court may be affected, may not be justifiable reason to claim privilege. Transparency in the working and accountability of any institution discharging public functions in a democratic set up is need of the hour. In case the requisite records are furnished by the Commission for the purpose of investigation, the same would not have any effect on the security of the State in fact the Commission had nothing to hide regarding the process of selection followed by it and the same will result in building confidence of the public at large in the functioning of the Commission whereas on the other side if the claim of the Commission for privilege is accepted, the same would be contrary to the public interest.
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Central Information Commission & Anr. on 11 July, 2012

We may refer to the following observations at page 608 of the report: (SCC pp. 280-81, para 70) "It is settled law and it was so clearly recognised in Raj Narain case that there may be classes of documents which public interest requires should not be disclosed, no matter what the individual documents in those classes may contain or in other words, the law recognizes that there may be classes of documents which in the public interest should be immune from disclosure. There is one such class of documents which for years has been recognised by the law as entitled in the public interest to be protected against disclosure and that class consists of documents which it is really necessary for the proper functioning of the public service to withhold from disclosure. The documents falling within this class are granted immunity from disclosure not because of their contents but because of the class to which they belong.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Director, Central Bureu Investication vs Ram Jethmalani on 16 March, 1988

(38) The resistance of the claim of privilege from disclosure of documents within the ambit and scope of Section 123 of the Evidence Act was rejected by the Supreme Court by a majority of Six against One. It is well- recognised that fair administration of justice is itself a matter of vital public importance. The law on public interest immunity was expounded. The injury which would be caused to the public interest in the administration of justice by the non-disclosure of the correspondence was held as far outweighing the injury which may, if at all, cause to the public interest by their disclosure. P.N Bhagwati, J. dealt with the important question in the area of public law in the context of the open society as part of the democratic structure. His Lordship observed that the citizens' right to know the facts, the true facts about the administration of the country is thus one of the pillars of the democratic State and that is why the demand for openness in the Government is increasingly growing in the different parts of the world. These observations of Mathew, J. in "State of U.P. v. Raj Narain" (supra) were quoted:- "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. 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."
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 3 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

S.Ramamirtham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2005

"Section 123 of the Evidence Act gives right to the Government, in other words, to the Minister or in his absence head of the department, to claim privilege, in other words immunity from disclosure of the unpublished official State documents in public interest.... This Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975 (4) SCC 428), held that an objection claiming immunity should be raised by an affidavit affirmed by the head of the department..... They must state with precision the grounds or reasons in support of the public interest immunity. It is now settled law that the initial claim for public interest immunity to produce unpublished official records for short "State documents" should be made through an affidavit generally by the Minister concerned, in his absence by the Secretary of the department or head of the department..... The affidavit should indicate that the documents in question have been carefully read and considered and the deponent has been satisfied, supported by reasons or grounds valid and germane, as to why it is apprehended that public interest would be injured by disclosure of the document summoned or called for.....If the court is satisfied from the affidavit and the reasons assigned for withholding production or disclosure, the court may pass an appropriate order in that behalf."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Ram Jethmalani vs The Director, Cbi, Spe, Cia-I, New Delhi on 25 November, 1986

In my view the observations in the case reported as , regarding direct and tangible interest have been whittled down and controlled by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (supra) and in the case of S. P. Gupta v. U.O.I. (supra), as also the Preamble of the Constitution of India, Art. 51A; and Art. 39 of the Constitution of India. The direct and tangible interest, in view of the aforesaid cases, and provisions of the Constitution, in the facts and circumstances of the case, must necessarily be what is needed to secure justice to a citizen of India against a foreign citizen in a foreign jurisdiction to protect his reputation and to advance the cause of justice.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next