(..11..)

TORTUOUS LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT

Table of Contents

QUESTION BANK

Q.1. How far tortuous liability is attracted in case of sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the Government?

Q.2. How far the Government is immuned in tortuous liability in sovereign functions?

SYNOPSIS

THE DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE FOR WRONG COMMITTED BY ITS SERVANTS: –
English Law-
Indian Law-
Sovereign and non-sovereign functions: –
After commencement of constitution-
The Government (Liability in Tort) Bill 1967-

Notes: 1. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL: –

MEANING
SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE

III. INGREDIENTS OF S. 115 (i.e. DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL)

Notes: 2. CROWN PRIVILEGE

MEANING: –
ENGLISH LAW: –

III. INDIAN LAW: –

WHETHER DOCTRINE APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT: –
In England: –
In India: –

Exceptions to the doctrine: –

Does not apply against statute: –
Estoppel does not apply against public policy: –
Estoppel does not apply against ‘public interest’: –

Notes: 3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION.

A) Right to Information
B) Object of the Act: –
C) Definitions: –

1) Information means (S.2F)

2). Public authority means (S.2H)

3). Right to information means (S.2 (J))

D) Provisions of the Act: –
Right to information (S.3)
Obligation of public authorities (S.4)
Information not open for disclosure (S.8):
Persons excluded from providing information (S.24)-
Application procedure for requesting information (S.6):-
Time limit to get information (S. 7)-

A. THE DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE FOR WRONG COMMITTED BY ITS SERVANTS[1]: –

‘Vicarious liability’ refers to a situation where one person is held liable for an act or omission of another person. Thus, the master may be held liable for the torts his servant committed during employment. Similarly, the principal is held liable for the tortuous act of his agent. Likewise, a company is held liable for an act of its directors. This doctrine of vicarious liability is based on two maxims: –

Respondent superior[2] (i.e., let the principal be liable)
Qui Facit Per alium facit per se[3] (i.e. he who does an act through another does it himself).

This doctrine is based on ‘social convenience’ and rough justice.

The State is a legal entity that acts through human agency, i.e. servants. The relationship between the ‘State’ and its servants or officials is that of ‘master and servant’. Therefore, the State is held vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its servants.

a. English Law: –

Under common law in England, absolute immunity of the Crown was accepted, and the Crown could not be sued in tort for wrongs committed by its servants during their employment. It was based on the maxim “King can do no wrong”, but by virtue of the Crown Proceeding Act 1947. The Crown is made vicariously liable for the torts committed by its servants. This Act placed the government on the same footing as the ‘private individual’. Now, the government can sue for tortuous acts committed by its servants.

b. Indian Law: –

In India, Parliament has not passed any such law prescribing tortuous liability of the State; however, Art. 294 (b) of the constitution provides that the Union Government or State Governments may arise ‘out of any contract or otherwise’. The word ‘otherwise’ includes the government’s liability arising out of its servants’ tortuous acts.

Art. 300 (1) lays down the extent of such liability. It provides that the liability of the Union of India or a State Government will be the same as that of the dominion of India (i.e. British India) and the provinces before the commencement of the constitution (i.e. pre-independence days). So far, no law has been passed by Parliament deciding the Government’s liability for torts of its servants. It is necessary to discuss the liability of the Dominion of India (i.e. British India) before the commencement of the Indian constitution.

c. Sovereign and non-sovereign functions[4]: –

The first case decided in British India on the tortuous liability of the State was

Steam Navigation Company’s Case[5]

Facts: The plaintiff claimed damages for injury to its horses caused by the negligence of some workmen in the Government Dockyard. The defendant company pleaded immunity (defence) on the grounds that it was engaged in ship repair, managed by the East India Company, a sovereign.

Held: Though the East India Company was sovereign, ship repair is a commercial activity. A private individual could carry it on; hence, it is a non-sovereign function. Therefore, the defendant company was held liable.

The Court made the distinction between sovereign functions (i.e. army, navy, etc.) of the State and non-sovereign functions (i.e. trade commerce, etc.) of the State for the imposition of tortuous liability. The government, by this principle, could be held liable if the tort is committed by its servants while discharging non-sovereign functions but not while discharging sovereign functions.

d) After the commencement of the constitution[6]: –

In the State of Rajasthan, V/s Vidhyawati[7]

Facts: – A jeep was owned and maintained by the State of Rajasthan for the official use of the district’s Collector. While bringing it back from the garage, the jeep driver drove it rashly and negligently, thereby knocking down a pedestrian. The pedestrian died, and his widow sued the driver and the state for damages.

Held: – The Supreme Court did not follow the sovereign, non-sovereign test but held the state vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver. The Court observed that “after the establishment of a Republican form of Government under the constitution, there was no justification in principle or the public interest that the state should not be held liable vicariously for the tortuous acts of its servants.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court diluted the importance and principle of the above case in a subsequent case of Kasturi Lal.

In Kasturi Lal V/s State of U.P. [8]

Facts: – The petitioner, Kasturi Lal, was a Jewell merchant. He came to Meerut with gold and silver in a business transaction. While passing through the market, policemen arrested him under suspicion that the jewellery was smuggled. The jewellery was seized and kept under the custody of the head constable. The petitioner subsequently proved that the jewellery was his own and not smuggled. Meanwhile, the head constable fled away to Pakistan with the jewellery in his custody. The petitioner sued the state for the loss caused to him by the negligence of state police authorities.

Held: – That the State was not liable as police authorities were exercising ‘Sovereign functions’.

Unfortunately, the Court again caught itself in the dichotomy of sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the state when the Court once buried it in Vidyawati’s case.

However, the Supreme Court was satisfied that Kasturilal’s case did not lay down the correct proposition of law. Therefore, in subsequent cases, either the Court did not refer to Kasturilal at all or described it as irrelevant[9].

e. The Government (Liability in Tort) Bill 1967: –

Because of the uncertainty about state liability due to lack of proper legislation, the law commission recommended passing the law enshrining various provisions relating to States’ liability. Consequently, a bill titled “The Government (Liability in Tort) Bill 1967” was introduced in Lok-Sabha in 1969 but could not yet be passed into law.

==========================================================

NOTE: –

1. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL[10]: –

I. MEANING: –

The doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel[11] is well-founded in administrative law. It is described as the rule of evidence, but according to some jurists, it is the principle of law. The rule of promissory estoppel precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement formerly made by him or the existence of facts which he has, by words or conduct, led others to believe in. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. It can not find a course of action; it merely acts as a shield, not a sword.

II. SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE[12]: –

This principle of promissory estoppel is embodied in S. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. It provides that “when one person has by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing”.

Illustration

A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain lands belong to A and thereby induces B to buy and pay for them.

The land thereafter became the property of A. However, A sought to set aside the sale on the ground that he had no title at the time of sale. Therefore, he must not be allowed to prove his want of title (i.e. A is estopped from denying the absence of his title at the time of the sale transaction).

III. INGREDIENTS OF S. 115[13] (i.e. DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL)

The following ingredients can be deduced from S. 115-

There shall be some representation made by one person to another, either (a) by a statement or (b) by conduct.
That person must make such representation to be acted upon by that other person.
The other person must have acted upon such representation.
In consequence, that other person has suffered injury, loss or detriment.

IV. WHETHER DOCTRINE APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT[14]: –

In England: – In England, the traditional view was that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to private individuals only, and the Crown was not bound by it. However, in modern times, it is well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel equally applies to the Crown or government.

In Robertson V/s Minister of Pensions [15]

Facts: – One R, an army officer, claimed a disablement pension because of a war injury. The war officer accepted his disability as attributable to military service. Relying on this assurance, R did not take any steps that he would have taken otherwise to support his claim. The ministry thereafter refused to grant the pension on the ground that the injuries to R could not be attributed to war. Therefore, they were not warring injuries.

Held: The court held the ministry liable for payment of pension to R. Denning J observed that “the Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppel does not bind the Crown, for that the doctrine has long been exploded”.

In India: –

In India, the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Government was recognised long back in 1905. The Bombay high Court applied this doctrine against the government in 1905[16].

The landmark judgment at this point in India is in the Union of India V/s. Anglo-Afghan Agencies[17]

Fact: – An “Export Promotion Scheme” was published by the textile commissioner. The scheme provided that exporters would be entitled to import raw materials up to 100 percent of the value of their export. Relying on this representation, the petitioner exported goods worth Rs. 5 Lakhs. However, he did not allow permission to import raw materials worth Rs. 5 lakhs.

The contention of the Government: – It was contended by the government that the scheme was merely administrative in character and did not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. It argued that there was no formal contract as required by Art. 299(1) of the constitution. Therefore, the contract was not binding on the government.

The Supreme Court Held: – Despite the above contentions, the government was liable because the petitioner had acted on a representation made by the government. Therefore, the government is stopped from denying its liability.

Exceptions to the doctrine: –

Does not apply against statute: – The doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the statute[18].
Estoppel does not apply against public policy[19]: –

Since the doctrine of estoppel is an equitable remedy, it can be invoked in the larger public interest. If the promise is opposed to public policy, it cannot be enforced.

Estoppel does not apply against ‘public interest[20]’: –

Since the doctrine of estoppel is an equitable remedy, it cannot act against the public interest.[21].

NOTE:- 2

CROWN PRIVILEGE[22]

I. MEANING:

‘Crown Privilege’ in England means the Crown has the special privilege to refuse to disclose a document or to answer any question if, in its opinion, such disclosure or answer would be injurious to the public interest. In other words, when the Crown or state is exempted from disclosing certain matters, it is called ‘Crown privilege’ or ‘state privilege’. This principle is based on the maxim ‘solus populi est suprema lex’ (i.e. public welfare is the highest law). This rule is based on public policy, and when private interest and public interest conflict, the public interest shall be most important.

II. ENGLISH LAW[23]: –

‘Crown Privilege’ originated from English law. In England, the Crown had a special privilege to refuse to disclose certain documents or to answer any question if, in its opinion, such disclosure or answer would be injurious to the public interest.

In Durncan V/s Cammel, Laird & co. Ltd[24]

Facts: – ‘Thetis’ was a British submarine. It was sunk in the sea during the Second World War, taking ninety-nine lives. One of the widows who died in that submarine sued the Crown. To get the evidence, she asked the Court to direct the government to produce certain documents which would reveal the real facts of the incident so that her claim for compensation would succeed. The Crown claimed privilege.

Held: – The House of Lords upheld Crown privilege, but the trend was changed, in

Conway V/S Rimmer [25]

Facts: – A police constable was prosecuted for theft of an electric torch. He was subsequently acquitted. He sued the prosecutors (police officers for malicious prosecution). He applied for the discovery of certain documents relevant to his case. ‘Crown Privilege’ was claimed.

Held: – The House of Lords overruled Duncan’s case earlier and disallowed the privilege claim. The court observed that “Certain documents ought not to be disclosed, e.g. cabinet minutes, documents relating to national defence, foreign affairs, etc. However, privilege should not be allowed for routine or trivial documents.

III. INDIAN LAW[26]: –

In India, the principle of Crown privilege is embodied in S.123 of the Evidence Act. 1872, it provides that “no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of state, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit”.

whereas S. 162 of the Evidence Act empowers the Court to finally decide the validity of the objection raised against the production of the document.

‘Protection of public interest is justification for these sections.

In the State of Punjab, V/s Sodhi Sukhdev Singh[27]

Facts: – One S was the district and sessions Judge. He was removed from service. Later on, he was reinstated. He filed a suit, praying to declare his removal illegal. He also claimed arrears of the salary of his removal period. In support of his claim, he wanted certain documents in state custody. The Government claimed “Crown Privilege”.

Held: – The Supreme Court, after inspecting the documents, allowed Crown privilege on the ground of ‘Public interest.’

In State of U.P. V/s Rajnarayan [28]

Facts: – Rajnarayan had filed an election petition against the prime minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi. He alleged that Gandhi was misusing her power as Prime Minister in general elections. During the trial, he applied to produce certain documents. The Government claimed privilege.

Held:- The High Court of Allahabad rejected privilege, but the Supreme Court allowed privilege in the public interest.

In U.P. V/s Chandra Mohan Nigam[29]

Facts: – The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. He challenged the government’s order, alleging that the order was arbitrary and mala fide. He also claimed that certain documents were to be produced before the court by the government. The government claimed privilege.

Held: -The Supreme Court ordered the Government to produce the documents before the Court

However, the modern trend is towards a more open government. The ‘right to know is recognised as fundamental under Art.19 of the Constitution. The information Act has been enacted to enable people to access information. Consequently, the scope of Crown privilege has narrowed to a great extent.

Note: – 3

RIGHT TO INFORMATION[30]

A) Right to Information

The Right to Information Act. The Parliament enacted 2005 on the fifty-sixth year of the Republic of India.

Similarly, the State of Maharashtra enacted the law on the right to information in 2002.

Before the enactment, the Supreme Court of India had recognised the ‘right to Information’ under Art 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution.

B) Object of the Act[31]: –

The right to information is the bedrock of democracy. It can ensure transparency, openness, and effective participation[32] of the people in a democratic society. Democracy requires informed citizens and transparency of information. The Act is essential to curtail corruption and to hold the Government and their officers accountable to citizens.

C) Definitions: –

1) ‘Information’ means (S.2F):-

“Information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars[33], orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which a public authority can access under any other law for the time being in force;

2). ‘Public authority’ means (S.2H):-

“Public authority” means any authority, body, or institution of self-government established or constituted-

(a) By or under the Constitution;

(b)By any other law made by Parliament;

(c)By any other law made by the State Legislature;

(d) By notification[34] issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-

(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) Non-Government organisations are substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

3). ‘Right to information means (S.2(J)):-

“Right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act, which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

i) Inspection of work, documents, and records;
ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of the documents and records;

iii) Taking certified samples of material;

iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or any other device;

D) Provisions of the Act: –

1. Right to information (S.3):-

It provides that subject to the provisions of this Act; all citizens shall have the right to information.

2. Obligation of public authorities [35](S.4):-

Public authorities are imposed with the obligation to facilitate the right to information.

These obligations are-

It shall be published within one hundred and twenty days of the enactment.

(i) The particulars of its organization, functions and duties[36];

(ii) The powers and duties of its officers and employees;

(iii) The procedure followed in its decision-making process, including channels of supervision and accountability[37];

(iv) The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

(v)The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records used by its employees for discharging its functions;

(vi) A statement of categories of the documents held by it or under its control;

(vii) The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with or representation by the members of the public in relation to the formulation of policy or implementation thereof;

(viii) A statement of the boards, councils, committees, and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted by it, Additional information as to whether the meetings of these bodies are open to the public or the minutes of such meetings are accessible to the public;

(ix)A directory of its officers and employees;

(x)The monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

(xi) The budget allocated to each of its agencies, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

(xii) The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details and beneficiaries of such programmes;

(xiii) Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it.

(xiv) Details of the information available to, or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

(xv) The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

(xvi) The names, designations and other particulars of the public information officers. [S.4 (1) (b)]

3) Information not open for disclosure[38] (S.8): –

The following information is exempted from disclosure –

(i) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State, or lead to incitement of an offence;

(ii) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(iii) Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature

(iv) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(v) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(vi) Information received in confidence from foreign Government:

(vii) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(viii) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension, or prosecution of offenders;

(ix) Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;

(x) Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual:

(xi) Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests

4. Persons excluded from providing information[39] (S.24)-

Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule, like IB. RAW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar. The Crime Branch-CID-CB. Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not absolute, and these organisations are obligated to provide information about corruption and human rights allegations. Further, information relating to allegations of human rights violations could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission(S. 24).

5. Application procedure for requesting information[40] (S.6):-

Persons seeking information may-

(i) Apply in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area to the PIO, specifying the particulars of the information sought for,

(ii) Reasons for seeking information are not required to be given;

(iii) Pay fees as may be prescribed (if not belonging to the below-poverty line category).

6. Time limit to get information[41] (S. 7)-

Following is the time limit for providing information-

(i) 30 days from the date of application.

(ii) 48 hours for information concerning the life and liberty of a person.

(iii) 5 days shall be added to the above response time if the application for information is given to the Assistant Public Information Officer.

(iv). If the interests of a third party are involved, then the time limit will be 40 days (maximum period + time given to the party to make representation).

(v) Failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal.

*****

[1] सरकारी नोकराने केलेल्या अपकृत्याबाबत सरकारची प्रातिनिधीक जबाबदारी [सरकारी सेवक द्वारा किए गए अपकृत्य के लिए सरकार का प्रतिनिधिक दायित्व]

[2] उच्च पदस्य जबाबदार/मुख्य जबाबदार [वरिष्ठ जिम्मेदार / मुख्य जिम्मेदार]

[3] जो दुस-याकडून एखादे कृत्य करुन घेतो त्याने ते स्वतः केल्यासारखे असते [जो दूसरे से कोई काम लेता है, वह ऐसा है जैसे उसने खुद ही किया हो]

[4] सार्वभौम आणि असार्वभौम कार्ये [संप्रभु और गैर-संप्रभु कार्य]

[5] i.e. Penirusular and Oriental steam Navigation Co. V/s Secretary of State (1861) 5 Bom HCR App 1

[6] राज्यघटनेची अंमलबजावणी झालेनंतर [संविधान लागू होने के बाद]

[7] i.e. AIR 1962 SC 933

[8] i.e. AIR 1965 SC 1039

[9] i.e. In State of Gujrat V/s M.M.H.Hasam. (AIR 1967 SC 1885)

Facts:- The goods of the respondent were ceased by the custom authorities under the provisions of the customs Act, 1962, on the ground that they were smuggled goods. Meanwhile, the goods were disposed by the state authorities. The court subsequently ordered to return the goods.

Supreme Court held that: – the government was in a position of a bailee and was therefore, bound to return the goods. The some view was followed by Supreme Court, in subsequent case, (Which is more similar with that of Kasturilal’s Case).

In Basavva Patil V/s State of Mysore (AIR 1977 SC 1749)

Facts: – Some ornaments were stolen from the house of the appellant. They were recovered by the police authorities in the course of investigation and produced before the criminal court. The goods were retained by the police authorities under the order of the court. However, the goods were stolen from the police custody before the disposal of the case.

Held: – Supreme Court ordered state to pay cash equivalent of the property to the appellant

[10] प्रतिबंध/‘प्रतिबंधक कबुली’ संकल्पना [रोकथाम/’निवारक स्वीकारोक्ति’ अवधारणा]

[11] वचक प्रतिबंध किंवा न्याय प्रतिबंध [वाणी में बाधा या न्याय में बाधा]

[12] संकल्पनेची व्याप्ती [अवधारणा का दायरा]

[13] कलम 115 चे आवष्यक घटक [अनुच्छेद 115 के आवश्यक तत्व]

[14] सरकारला संकल्पना लागू आहे का नाही? [अवधारणा सरकार पर लागू होती है या नहीं?]

[15] (1948) 2 AllE R 767

[16] i.e. Muncipal Corporation of Bombay V/s Secretary of state. ILR (1905) 29 Bom. 580

[17] i.e. AIR 1968 SC 718

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills V/s. State of U.P. (AIR 1976 SC 621)

This is one more landmark judgement on the subject of applicability of doctrine of Promisory Estoppel against government.

Facts: – The government of utter Pradesh announced that now industrial units set in the state would be granted exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of three years. Acting on the alone assurance the petitioner established the factory. However, the government later on withdraws the said benefit.

Held:- Government is liable by applying the doctrine of estoppel. However,

In Jit Ram V/s State Of Hariyana

AIR 1980 SC 1285,

Supreme Court took a step in backward direction, saying that the doctrine does not apply to Government.

However, this judgement was accepted as not laying down correct law. Therefore in subsequent cases, the ratio of Motilal’s case was followed.

Facts: – The Municipal committee of Bahadurgarh had established a market (mandai). It was resolved by the municipality in 1916 that the purchases of the plot in the market would not be liable to pay Octroi duty on the goods imported in the market (mandai). For about fifty years, the exemption continued, However, in 1965, the municipality decided to levy octroi duty. The same decision was challenged on ground of estoppel.

Held:- Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked.

[18] i.e. In Amar Singhji V/s State of Rajasthan. AIR 1955 SC 504.

Facts:- The secretary to the Government wrote a letter to the Collector of Tonk that the Jagir of Raj-Mata would not be acquired during her life time. But subsequently acquisition proceedings were initiated against the Raj-Mata. It was contended by the petitioner Raj-Mata that the government was estoppel from initiating acquisition proceeding.

Supreme Court held:- That the acquisition proceedings were regulated by statute and therefore. No estoppel acts against statue.

[19] सार्वजनिक धोरणात्मक विरुध्द लागू नाही [सार्वजनिक नीति के विरुद्ध लागू नहीं है]

[20] सार्वजनिक हिताविरुध्द लागू नाही [जनहित के विरुद्ध लागू नहीं]

[21] Kasinka Trading Co. V/s Union of India. AIR 1995 SC 874.

Facts:- The government had issued notification under the customs Act, 1962, granting exemption from payment of custom duty on certain raw materials imported from foreign country. The notification had issued in public interest was to remain in force for two years. However, subsequently, the exemption was withdrawn before the expiry of the specified period again in public interest.

Held:- Supreme Court upheld the action in public interest.

[22] सरकार/राजाचा विषेशाधिकार [सरकार/राजा का विशेषाधिकार]

[23] ब्रिटीश कायदा [ब्रिटिश कानून]

[24] i.e. (1924)AC 624.

In Ellis V/s Home Office (1953) 2 ALLER 149.

Facts:- Ellis was an under trial prisoner. He was assaulted by another prisoner, was an insane. Ellis sued the prison authorities for compensation and asked medical report of insane person. The Crown claimed Crown privilege.

Held:- Queens Bench granted ‘Crown Privilege’.

[25] i.e. (1968) 1 AllER 874

[26] भारतीय कायदा [भारतीय कानून]

[27] AIR 1961 SC 493

[28] AIR 1975 SC 866

[29] AIR 1977 SC 2411

[30] माहितीचा अधिकार [सूचना का अधिकार]

[31] कायदयाचा उद्देष [अधिनियम का उद्देश्य]

[32] पारदर्षकता, उघडपणा, सक्रिय सहभाग [पारदर्शिता, खुलापन, सक्रिय भागीदारी]

[33] परिपत्रक [परिपत्र]

[34] जाहीर सूचना [सार्वजनिक सूचना]

[35] सरकारी अधिकाÚयांची जबाबदारी [सरकारी अधिकारियों की जिम्मेदारी]

[36] रचना, कार्ये व कर्तव्य [संरचना, कार्य और कर्तव्य]

[37] देखरेख आणि जबाबदारी [निगरानी और जवाबदेही]

[38] मिळण्याजोगी माहिती [जानकारी प्राप्त की जा सक्ती है]]

[39] कोण माहिती देवू षकणार नाही [जानकारी कौन नहीं देगा]

[40] माहितीसाठी अर्ज करण्याची पद्धत [सूचना के लिए आवेदन करने की विधि]

[41] माहिती मिळण्याचा कालावधी [सूचना प्राप्त करने की अवधि]