- (1.) The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 2.2.2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The facts leading to the present writ appeal are as follows. The appellant made an application dated 12.2.2009 to the Public Information Officer, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu seeking permission to inspect the five latest statement of assets disclosure submitted by the ten I.A.S. Officers including the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and the nine Secretaries of the Departments of Finance, Industries, Health and Family Welfare, Agriculture, Public Works Department, Housing and Urban Development, Home, Prohibition and Excise, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj and Revenue. That application was rejected by the Public Information Officer in his letter dated 16.3.2009 on the ground that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the same was also rejected on 22.4.2009 with the same reason. Thereafter, the appellant filed a further appeal to the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission held that Section 8(1)(j) is not applicable for the assets details of Government servants. Nevertheless, it found that the information presented in a sealed cover constitutes information that is "held" by the public authority to ensure confidentiality and the assets details of public servants are personal information and since there was no public interest cause established, the information need not be disclosed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in the writ petition giving rise to the present writ appeal.
(2.) We have heard Dr.V.Krishna Ananth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Vivek Sriram, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent.
(3.) Before we consider the issue raised in this writ appeal, we may refer to our own judgment in The Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. R.Karthikeyan and others, 2011 3 CTC 241, where we have narrated the history and object of the legislation, namely, the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the judgments of the Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs 7 to 14 of the said judgment read thus: "7. The legal entrenchment of the right to information is drawn from the United Nations, which recognised the "freedom of Information as fundamental human right and as the touchstone for all freedoms to which the United Nations was consecrated." The right of free expression and declaring information has been recognised at the common law many years back, as the fundamental rights of the public to know what the Government have been transacting in their name. Until we adopted our Constitution in 1950, there had been no scope for individual freedom at any time in India's history. After the Constitution, the liberty of thought is the basis of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which is an essential component of a democratic governance. The right to information is now treated as an invisible integral part of the right of free speech. As information is vital not only for the betterment of the society but also for the betterment of an individual, Article 21 guarantees right to life including the basic right to be informed. 8. India has adopted a democratic form of Government and no democratic Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the Government. It is only when the people know how the Government is functioning, they can fulfill the role which democracy assigned to them and make democracy a really effective participatory democracy. Right to information is basic to any democracy. A vibrant citizenry is a prerequisite for survival of democratic society and governance. The quality of life in a civilized society depends upon the quality of exchange of information about the governance and related aspects. It is now widely recognised that openness and accessibility of people to information about the government's functioning is a vital component of democracy. Disclosure of allowable information would lead to better system and it would be in the public interest that a public authority should throw open the process of public scrutiny, which would result in evolving a better system. Disclosure of information would compromise the integrity and efficiency of the functioning of the public authority. In an increasingly knowledge-based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance in a participatory democracy. 9. The Right to Information Act is a rights based enactment more akin to any other enactments safeguarding fundamental rights. As the statement of the object of the Act goes, democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information. The Act encompasses basically two things, firstly, the right of a citizen to seek for information to which he is entitled under the provisions of the Act and the corresponding duty of the information officers to furnish such information and secondly, it leads to transparency in the government functioning. 10. The use of the Right to Information Act needs no elaborate reference as the very fact that such a right to get information has been recognised as a fundamental right. To put it precisely, the information supplied under the Act brings about transparency and accountability, both of which hold to reduce corruption and increased efficiency in governance and it also encourages participation of the people in a democracy. The need for right to information ensures people's participation, ensures principle of accountability, transparency, limiting the discretion powers given to officials, protects the civil liberties, effective and proper implementation of schemes of government and makes media more effective. 11. Though the Indian Constitution has no express provision guaranteeing the right to information, it has been recognized by the Courts in a plethora of cases as implicit in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees to all citizens the right to free speech and expression, and Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life in accordance with due process to all citizens. The background of the enactment will not be complete if the contribution of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the legislation is not mentioned. The Apex Court in the decision in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR(SC) 865, interpreted Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India so widely so as to include so many rights within its sweeping shadow. One such right is the right to information. It is observed in the said judgment that "the right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute is a factor which should make wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security." The Apex Court further observed that "the people of this country have the right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in its bearing." The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), as observed by the Apex Court in S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1982 AIR(SC) 149. 12. In the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. The Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 2 SCC 161, the Apex Court, while considering the freedom of speech and expression in the light of the right to information, has observed that "freedom of speech and expression is basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It includes the right to impart and receive information." The Apex Court has also observed that "for ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of the country,it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues and a successful democracy posits an 'aware' citizenry." 13. The pride for enactment of the Right to Information Act would certainly go to the judiciary as could be seen from certain observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in some of the judgments. The judgment in Union of India v. Association for Democractic Reforms, 2002 5 SCC 294 is again a forerunner for recognising the right to information as a fundamental right and the said judgment laid the foundation over which the superstructure of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was built. In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2004 2 SCC 476, it was observed that- "Right of information is a facet of the freedom of 'speech and expression' as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of information, thus, indisputably is a fundamental right." In another case in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, 2002 5 SCC 294, it was observed that the right to get information in a democracy is recognized all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy". 14. The Apex Court in Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, 2003 5 SCC 494, also took the same view and held- "It is no doubt true that in a democratic framework free flow of information to the citizens is necessary for proper functioning particularly in matters which form part of a public record. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner do not also say that right to information is absolute. There are several areas where such information need not be furnished. Even the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, to which also reference has been made, does not say in absolute terms that information gathered at any level in any manner for any purpose shall be disclosed to the public.";