Advocates:
AMIT SHARMA

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT

PETITION

(CIVIL)

NO.

210

of

2012

Namit Sharma

… Petitioner

Versus

Union of India

… Respondent

J U D G M

E N T

Swatanter

Kumar,

J.

1.

The value of any freedom is determined by the extent to

which the citizens are able to enjoy such freedom. Ours is a

constitutional democracy and it is axiomatic that citizens have

the right to know about the affairs of the Government which,

having been elected by them, seeks to formulate some policies of

governance aimed at their welfare. However, like any other

freedom, this freedom also has limitations.

It is a settled

proposition that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (for

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

short ‘the Constitution’) encompasses the right to impart and

receive information. The Right to Information has been stated to

be one of the important facets of proper governance. With the

passage of time, this concept has not only developed in the field of

law, but also has attained new dimensions in its application.

This court while highlighting the need for the society and its

entitlement to know has observed that public interest is better

served by effective application of the right to information. This

freedom has been accepted in one form or the other in various

parts of the world. This Court, in absence of any statutory law, in

the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,

Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.

[(1995) 2 SCC 161] held as under :

“The democracy cannot exist unless all

citizens have a right to participate in the

affairs of the polity of the country. The right

to participate in the affairs of the country is

meaningless unless the citizens are well

informed on all sides of the issues, in respect

of which they are called upon to express their

views.

One-sided

information,

disinformation, misinformation and non-

information, all equally create an uninformed

citizenry which makes democracy a farce

when medium of information is monopolized

either by a partisan central authority or by

private

individuals

or

oligarchy

organizations. This is particularly so in a

country like ours where about 65 per cent of

the population is illiterate and hardly 1 ½

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

per cent of the population has an access to

the print media which is not subject to pre-

censorship.”

2.

The legal principle of ‘A man’s house is his castle. The

midnight knock by the police bully breaking into the peace of the

citizen’s home is outrageous in law’, stated by Edward Coke has

been explained by Justice Douglas as follows:

“The free State offers what a police state

denies – the privacy of the home, the dignity

and peace of mind of the individual. That

precious right to be left alone is violated once

the police enter our conversations.”

3.

The States which are governed by Policing and have a policy

of greater restriction and control obviously restrict the enjoyment

of such freedoms. That, however, does not necessarily imply that

this freedom is restriction-free in the States where democratic

governance prevails. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution itself is

controlled by the reasonable restrictions imposed by the State by

enacting various laws from time to time.

4.

The petitioner, a public spirited citizen, has approached this

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that though the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act of 2005’) is an

important tool in the hands of any citizen to keep checks and

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

balances on the working of the public servants, yet the criterion

for appointment of the persons who are to adjudicate the disputes

under this Act are too vague, general, ultra vires the Constitution

and contrary to the