Important points
1. Any information relating to the training features processes or technology of a nuclear plant cannot be disclosed as it may be vulnerable to sabotage.
2. A reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to information is always permissible in the interest of the security of the State.
3. Unlike Constitutions of some other developed countries, no fundamental right in India is absolute in nature.
4. Right of information is a facet of ‘speech and expression’ as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, it is thus a fundamental right.

Headnote:Atomic Energy Act, 1962-Sections 16(1), 3, 16, 17, 27 and 30-Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(a), 19(2)-Right of information relating to purported safety violations and defects in various nuclear installations and power plants across the country-Scope-Atomic Energy Regulatory Board prepared a report in November, 1995 documentary certain safety defects and weaknesses citing 130 instances-Appellants sought disclosure of information from respondents-Appellants mainly relied upon reports appearing in newspapers, magazines and editorials and articles-Respondents relying on or on basis of a notification dated 4-2-1975 raised a plea of privilege in relation to report of Board, contending that the same had been classified as ‘Secret’-Whether provisions of Section 18 of the Act are valid law imposing reasonable restriction on such freedom in interest of the State-(Yes)-Criteria for determining question of privilege-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 123 and 162.
       Held : Section 18 of the Act contains an enabling provision. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said provision, the Central Government has issued an order on or about 4th February, 1975 restricting disclosure of certain information mentioned therein except with the prior permission of the Central Government. (Para 34)
       We do not think that having regard to the purport and object of the said Act, the provisions of Section 18 have bestowed unguided and uncanalised powers on the Central Government. Sections 18 and 3 of the Atomic Energy Act had to be enacted by the Parliament as in wrong hands the information can pose a danger not only to the security of the State but to the public at large. (Para 39)
       The statutory scheme contained in the provisions of the Act, the rules framed thereunder, composition of the Atomic Energy Commission and AERB leave no manner of doubt that the effective functions of the nuclear power plants are sensitive in nature. The functions of the Board are varied and wide. Only out of certain functions of the Board, some have been marked as “Secret” which fulfilled the statutory criteria laid down under Section 18 of the Act. A statute carries with it a presumption of constitutionality. Such a presumption extends also in relation to a law which has been enacted for imposing reasonable restrictions in the fundamental right. (Para 41)
       We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section 18 is not unconstitutional and a valid piece of legislation. (Para 43)
       Once provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and the order framed thereunder are held to be intra vires, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether exercise of such powers should be held to be invalid by this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court in such matter is very limited. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review in such matters unless it is found that formation of belief by the statutory authority suffers from mala fide, dishonesty or corrupt practice. The order can be set aside if it is held to be beyond the limits for which the power has been conferred upon the authorities by the Legislature or is based on the grounds extraneous to the legislation and if there are no grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction required thereunder. No such case has been made out by the appellant. (Para 66)
       Keeping in view the purport and object for which the disclosure of the Report of the Board has been withheld, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We may record that the learned Attorney General had made an offer to place the Report before us in a sealed cover. We do not think that in this case, perusal of the report by the Court is necessary. We are also satisfied that the order issued by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act and its claim of privilege do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference with the High Court judgment by us. (Para 80)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The right to information is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression (!) . However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in matters concerning national security and public safety (!) .
Information related to the training, features, processes, or technology of nuclear plants cannot be disclosed, as such disclosures may be vulnerable to sabotage and pose a threat to national security (!) . The knowledge of specific data could enable adversaries to monitor and estimate strategic activities (!) .
The Atomic Energy Act provides mechanisms for restricting the disclosure of certain information, particularly through Section 18, which empowers the Central Government to restrict the release of information that could harm the security of the State or public interest (!) (!) .
The restrictions imposed under Section 18 are within the limits of the law and are aimed at safeguarding national security, given the sensitive nature of nuclear installations and their operations (!) (!) . The law presumes constitutionality and reasonableness, and the restrictions are not deemed vague or arbitrary (!) .
The statutory bodies involved, such as the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), operate independently and are composed of experts in the field. They undertake extensive safety reviews, inspections, and monitoring to ensure the safety of nuclear installations (!) (!) (!) .
The disclosure of certain safety reports, including those prepared by the AERB, is classified as "Secret" based on statutory orders and the sensitive nature of the information contained (!) (!) . Such classification aims to prevent potential harm from adversaries (!) .
The courts recognize that the right to information must be balanced against the need to protect national security interests. The courts will exercise judicial review only if there is mala fide, dishonesty, or extraneous grounds influencing the exercise of power (!) (!) .
When claims of privilege are made regarding official documents, the court assesses whether the document relates to affairs of the State and whether disclosure would be against public interest. The court performs a balancing exercise, weighing the public interest in disclosure against the need for secrecy (!) (!) .
The law presumes that statutory authorities will exercise their powers reasonably and within the bounds of law. The courts will not interfere unless there is evidence of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of discretion (!) (!) .
Overall, the law emphasizes that while the right to information is fundamental, it is not absolute. Restrictions are permissible when necessary for national security, especially concerning sensitive information related to nuclear facilities (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this document.

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.-

Introduction :

Right of information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The State under Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions inter alia in the interest of the State. How far and to what extent the same should be balanced is the question involved in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 30th January, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 1785 and 1792 of 1996.

Writ Proceedings :

2. The appellants herein in the said writ petition sought disclosure of information from the respondents relating to purported safety violations and defects in various nuclear installations and power plants across the country including those situated at Trombay and Tarapur. The said demand of information was made purported to be relying on or on the basis of an information that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) prepared a report in November, 1995 documenting therein safety defects and weaknesses citing 130 instances which are said to be matters of concern. The appellants contended that a former Chairman of the AERB, Dr. Gopalkrishnan also expressed serious concern about the safety of nuclear installations in India disclosing that serious accidents had occurred in some of the nuclear facilities including one at Narora Atomic Power Plant in the State of U.P. and Kaiga Atomic Power Plant situated in the State of Karnataka.

3. The appellants herein in support of its prayers made in the writ petition mainly relied upon the reports appearing in the newspapers, magazines and editorials and articles.

4. In their counter affidavit, the respondents herein inter alia contended that the said Board was constituted in terms of Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act entrusting the task to develop Safety Codes, Guides and Standards for siting, design construction, commissioning, operating and decommissioning of the different types of plants, keeping in view the international recommendations and local requirements and develop safety policies in both radiation and industrial safety areas; Reviewing health and aspects of modifications in design/operation involving changes in the technical specification adopted in any of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) units; Reviewing operational experience in the light of the radiological and other safety criteria recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and such other international bodies and adapted to suit Indian conditions, and thereby evolve major safety policies; Prescribing acceptable limits of radiation exposure to occupational workers and members of the public and approve acceptable limits of environmental releases of radioactive substances; reviewing the emergency preparedness plans for non-DAE installations; Promote research and development efforts for fulfilling the functions and responsibilities specified; Reviewing the training programme, qualifications and licensing policies for personnel by the project/plants; Enforcing rules and regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for radiation safety in the country and such other functions as specified therein.

5. With the said counter affidavit, the Fourth Report of the Nuclear Plant Safety and Spent Fuel Management prepared by the Standing Committee on Atomic Energy consisting of members of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha had also been annexed. The Annual Report for the year 1995-96 prepared by the Government of India had also been annexed therewith. It was further contended that the specific questions were asked in the Parliament in relation to the alleged accidents which had been answered. It had been emphasized that necessary legislative and regulatory framework to ensure a competitive and independent assessment of the safety related requirements and practices in all nuclear installations have come in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 22

Cases Referred (10)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009