Disclosure restrictions upheld where atomic energy secrecy and public safety outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act is described as constitutionally valid because the power to restrict disclosure is confined by the Act's subject matter, objectives, and the connected interests of national security and public safety, so it is not an unguided or arbitrary discretion. The text further states that the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) remains subject to reasonable restrictions, and that non-disclosure of the AERB report was justified where disclosure could prejudice nuclear security and public interest. It also notes that privilege over unpublished official records is protected absent mala fides, dishonesty, or unreasonableness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional for conferring unguided or uncanalised power to restrict disclosure of information; (ii) whether the claim of privilege over the AERB report and the consequent non-disclosure of the report is legally sustainable in view of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional for conferring unguided or uncanalised power to restrict disclosure of information.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was examined in the context of the sensitive nature of atomic energy regulation. Section 18 was read with the other provisions of the Act, including the powers of the Central Government and the regulatory framework governing atomic energy, safety, and restricted information. The provision was held to contain adequate legislative guidance because the power to restrict disclosure is confined to the subject matter and objects of the Act, which are directly connected with national security and public safety. The Court held that the presumption of constitutionality applies and that the provision does not confer arbitrary or unlimited discretion.

Conclusion: Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act is constitutionally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of privilege over the AERB report and the consequent non-disclosure of the report is legally sustainable in view of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to information was recognised as part of freedom of speech and expression, but it was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Court applied the doctrine of balancing competing public interests and held that disclosure may be denied where the information relates to matters whose publication would prejudice national security or public safety. In the context of nuclear installations, the report was treated as sensitive and capable of revealing details that could harm the security of the State and public interest. The Court also applied the principles governing privilege for unpublished official records and concluded that judicial interference is limited where the statutory authority's satisfaction is not shown to be mala fide, dishonest, or otherwise unreasonable.

Conclusion: The claim of privilege over the report is valid and disclosure was not ordered.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, as the statutory restriction on disclosure and the claim of privilege were upheld in light of the sensitive national security context.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on disclosure will be upheld where it is confined by the subject matter and purpose of the enactment, and non-disclosure of sensitive information may be sustained when the public interest in secrecy outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

---