Back
RANJAN GOGOI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
YASHWANT SINHA – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR – Respondent
No references in the provided legal document address or support the proposition that amendments to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution are prospective in nature and not applicable to offences committed before 26.07.2018.
The document primarily discusses: - Claims of privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, evaluated on public interest grounds. - Freedom of press and speech under Article 19(1)(a), including its application to publication of allegedly secret documents already in the public domain. - Interactions between the Official Secrets Act, Right to Information Act (Sections 8, 24), and Evidence Act in the context of a review petition's maintainability. - Admissibility of improperly obtained documents when relevant and publicly available, without exclusion based on manner of procurement.
No paragraphs reference constitutional amendments, their effective dates, prospectivity, or applicability to pre-amendment offences. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI.
A preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the review petition has been raised by the Attorney General on behalf of the respondents. The learned Attorney General contends that the review petition lacks in bona fides inasmuch as three documents unauthorizedly removed from the office of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, have been appended to the review petition and relied upon by the review petitioners. The three documents in question are:
(a) An eight-page note written by three members of the Indian Negotiating Team ('INT') charged in reference to the Rafale Deal (note dated 01.06.2016)
(b) Note-18 of the Ministry of Defence (Government of India), F.No. AirHQ/S/96380/3/ASR PC-XXVI (Marked Secret under the Official Secrets Act)
(c) Note-10 written by S.K. Sharma (Deputy Secretary, MoD, Air-III), Note dated 24.11.2015 (Marked Secret under the Official Secrets Act)
2. It is contented that the alleged unauthorized removal of the documents from the custody of the competent authority of the Government of India and the use thereof to support the pleas urged in the review petition is in violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
