Sanjeev M. Gorwadkar and others vs State of Maharashtra and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Bom) 706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.V. Savant D.K. Deshmukh, JJ.
Sanjeev M. Gorwadkar others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others ...... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5396 of 1996 decided on 19-12-1996.
Advocates appeared
C.R. Dalvi, for petitioners.
M.N. Zambre, for respondent Nos. 1 2.
M.P Vashi, for respondent No. 3
A.S. Rao, for respondent Nos. 4 5.

Headnote:Articles 20, 21 and 226-Indian Evidence Act, Sections 57 and 56-Writ petition for Issue of direction to make available by publishing and printing adequate number of authenticated copies of Bare Acts, Legislation, Rules and other statutory Instruments-The elementary requirement In this country Is that the citizen Is able to obtain an authenticated copy of acts, rules and regulations-Petition allowed,- The concluding portion of the section says that if the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or documents as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so, The petitioners contention is that even if an attempt is made to get the copies of the bare Acts leave alone the rules and regulations framed there under the same are not easily available. We may incidentally mention that it has also been out unfortunate experience not to be able to get the copies of authenticated publications in the matter of acts, rules and regulations. The petitioners, therefore, contend that in the absence of authenticated copies of the Acts, Rules Regulations and other statutory instruments being made available, it will be difficult for the Courts to act upon the mandate of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act requiring the Court to take judicial notice of certain facts such as of laws in force in India, In this behalf, the petitioners have rightly contended that if ignorance of law is no excuse if per supposes that a citizen is able to know law. The elementary requirement in this country is that the citizen is able to obtain an authenticated copy of the Act, Rules and Regulations. If a citizen is not able to obtain these documents, the argument is that it would be difficult to implement the rule that ignorance of law is not an excuse. It is, therefore, necessary for the citizen to know the set of laws, rules and regulations which govern his conduct and it is obvious that in case of breach of any such act, rule or regulation, he may be faced with penal consequences.
       Article 21 and Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 57 and 58Make available Bare Act, rules and statutory instruments to public at reasonable rate-Copy to High Court and Mofussil Court-Direction to State Government-Compliance to be completed by 30th April, 1997.-lf ignorance of law is no excuse it pre-supposes that a citizen is able to know law. The elementary requirement in this country is that the citizen is able to obtain an authenticated copy of the Act, Rules and Regulations. If a citizen is not able to obtain these documents the argument is that it would be difficult to implement the rule the ignorance of law is not an excuse. It is, therefore, necessary for the citizen to know the set of law, rules and regulations which govern his conduct and it is obvious that in case of breach of any such Act, Rule or Regulation, he may be faced with penal consequences. This Court left with no alternative but to make the rule in the petition absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). This Court direct that time limit to comply with this order in terms or prayers (a) and (b) of the petition is 30th April, 1997. No order as to costs.
       Sections 57 and 78-See constitution of India, Article 21.
       Sections 57 and 78-See constitution of India, Articles 20, 21 and 226.
       Sections 57 and 78-It presupposes citizens to be able to know law.

JUDGMENT - A. V. SAVANT, J. :--- Heard all the learned Counsel.

2.This is a petition seeking very innocuous relief that respondent No. 1, 2 and 5 namely the State Government, Director of Printing and Publication Department and Union of India should be directed to make available by publishing and printing adequate number of authenticated copies of the bare Acts, legislation, rules and other statutory instruments having force of law at a reasonable price to the public at large throughout the State. Prayer (b) is as follows:

"(b) Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 be directed to make available adequate number of authenticated copies of the bare Acts, Legislations, Rules, Regulation and other statutory instruments having force of law in the State of Maharashtra to all the three benches of the High Court of Judicature of the State as well as to all the moffussil courts in the State of Maharashtra immediately.

3.The petitioners are citizens of India and both are lawyers practising in this Court. The petitioners have contended that under Article 21 of the Constitution they have a right to know the law which governed them. They have right to get the information about the laws which enable them to effectively enjoy the right to live under Article 20 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, such right puts obligation on respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to make adequate number of authenticated copies of bare Acts, legislation, rules and regulation etc. available not only to them but also all the three Benches of this Court functioning in the State as also the moffussil courts in the State of Maharashtra. Our attention is invited to A.D 1799 Regulation-T which annexed as Exhibit A to the petition. Para 1 of the said Regulation makes interesting reading which is as under:

"It is essential to the future propriety of the British territories under the Presidency of Bombay that all Regulations which may be passed by Government, affecting in any respect, the rights, persons, or property of their subjects, should be formed into a regular Code, and printed, with translate in the country language; that the grounds on which each Regulation may be enacted should be prefixed to regulate their decisions by the rules and ordinances which those Regulations may contain. A Code of Regulations, framed upon the above principles, will enable individuals to render themselves acquainted, with the laws upon which their security depends, and the mode of obtaining speedy redress against every infringement of them, the courts of justice will be able to apply the Regulations according to their true intent and import; future administrations will have the means of Judging how far Regulations have been productive of the desired effect, and when necessary, to modify or alter them, as from experience may be found advisable; new Regulations not to be made, nor those which may exist be repealed, without due deliberation; and the cause of future decline or prosperity will always be traceable in the Code to their source. The Governor in Council has according enacted as follows :

Every rule or order that may be passed by the Governor in Council, regarding the administration of justice, the imposition or levying of taxes, or of duties on commerce, the collection of the public revenue assessed upon the lands, the rights and tenures of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil, the provision of the Company's investment manufacture of salt, and generally all Regulations affecting in any respect of rights, person, or property of the natives, or any individuals who may be amenable to the country courts of Judicature, shall be recorded in the Judicial Department and there framed into a Regulation and printed and published as hereafter directed."

Needless to say that the objections behind making the Government enactment available to the citizens is very laudable. We may also refer to the provisions of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under

"57. Facts of which Court must t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday