1997 Supreme(SC) 541

1997(3) Supreme 294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 664 of 1995
Decided on 20-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Ram Jethmalani and Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Advocate, Arvind Nigam, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate and P. Parmeswaran, Advocate.

VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A fine balance is required to be maintained between two competing dimensions of public interest, namely, the right of the citizen to obtain disclosure of information of the vital decisions taken by the Government, which competes with the right of the State to protect the information relating to its crucial affairs.
2. A high level committee be appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Prime Minister, and after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to monitor investigations involving the kind of nexus referred to in the Vohra Committee Report and carry out the objectives described.

Headnote:DEMOCRACY IN INDIA-Right to freedom of information about affairs of Government-Limitations-Constitution of Vohra Committee by Union of India-Allegations regarding authenticity of report as tabled in Parliament and as presented to Court-Dismissed-Prayer to direct disclosure of supporting material placed before Committee-Rejected-Nodal Agency set up by Union Government pursuant to Debates in Parliament upon the Report conforms to recommendations contained in the Report-However, its composition not suitable for pursuing investigation of the kind required-A high level committee be appointed by President of India on advice of Prime Minister, after consultation with Speaker of Lok Sabha.

       Held : To ensure the continued participation of the people in the democratic process, they must be kept informed of the vital decisions taken by the Government and the basis thereof. Democracy, therefore, expects openness and openness is a concomitant of a free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But it is equally important to be alive to the dangers that lie ahead. It is important to realise that undue popular pressure brought to bear on decision-makers in Government can have frightening side-effects. If every action taken by the political or executive functionary is transformed into a public controversy and made subject to an enquiry to soothe popular sentiments, it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the independence of the decision-maker who may find it safer not to take any decision. It will paralyse the entire system and bring it to a grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations almost enigmatic and we think the answer is to maintain a fine balance which would serve public interest. (Para 17)

       Further held : We are reluctant to direct the disclosure of the supporting material which consists of information gathered from the Heads of the various Intelligence Agencies to the general public. To so direct would cause great harm to the agencies involved and to the conditions of assured secrecy and confidentiality under which they function. Furthermore, it must be noted that not all of the information collected and recorded in intelligence reports is substantiated by hard evidence. Often on the basis of unverified suspicion names are thrown by people to save their own skins. Intelligence Agents are not obliged to here to the principles of natural justice before they compile reports of possible suspects; quite frequently, individuals are shortlisted based purely on the investigators hunches and surmises or on account of the past background of the suspects. The disclosure of these reports would lead to a situation where public servants and elected representatives who, though entirely innocent, are compelled by virtue of their offices to associate with individuals whose culpability is beyond doubt, will also find themselves mired in suspicion. Such a situation would, in the long run, prove to be disastrous for the effective functioning of government. This is because it would make every governmental functionary over cautious about taking the simplest of decisions. (Para 20)

       The Nodal Agency, in its present form, comprises senior bureaucrats of the highest level. While it is suited to coordinate an exchange of information between different investigating agencies, its composition is such that it may not be viewed by the public as completely independent or immune from pressures of every kind. It is, therefore, not suitable for pursuing an investigation of this kind and taking it to the stage of prosecution where there may be nexus between the persons under investigation and powerful persons such as those referred to in the Vohra Committee Report. The Nodal Agency, in its present form, may not command the confidence of the people in this regard; this is a serious handicap for, in such matters, people s confidence is of the essence. An institution like the Ombudsman or a Lokpal, properly set up, could command such confidence and respect. (Para 27)

       Consequently held that the matter needs to be addressed by a body which can function with the highest degree of independence, being completely free from every conceivable influence and pressure. Such a body must possess the necessary powers to be able to direct investigation of all charges thoroughly before it decides, if at all, to launch prosecutions. To this end the facilities and services of trained investigators with distinguished records and impeachable credentials must be made available to it. (Para 28)