TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicial and legislative branches of the State, both working beneath the canopy of the Constitution." 2. That apart, in the case of Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41, it has been held thus : "It is the accepted doctrine of American Courts, which I consider to be well founded on principle, that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles." 3. In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538, the Apex Court ruled that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is on him who challenges the same to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles and it is the duty of the Court to sustain that there is a presumption of constitutionality and in doing so, the Court may take into consideration, the matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. 4. In State of Bihar v. Bihar Distiller....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the petition that the authorities under FERA have issued the show cause notice, which is a laconic one. The petitioner by letter dated 21st April, 2008 asked for basic materials and allegations based on which a show cause notice was issued. As the said letter was not responded to by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner preferred an application under the Act requiring answer to 14 queries. The said application was not entertained on the ground that the requisite information could not be provided by the Directorate of Enforcement as the Directorate has been exempted under section 24 read with Second Schedule of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Directorate of Enforcement, which concurred with the order passed by the Public Information Officer. 9. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, a further appeal was filed before the Central Information Commission and by the impugned order dated 11th May, 2009 the Information Commission dismissed the same on the following grounds :- "7. Appellant's arguments lacked merit. It is not for this commission to pronounce on the constitutionality of section 24 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of India and, therefore, the same cannot be infringed or abridged by a statutory provision. (b) The exceptions that have been carved out under section 24 of the Act suffer from lack of guidance and, therefore, an unfettered and unbridled power is conferred on the statutory authority inasmuch the authority in the name of security or any other facet can deny the information to a citizen which is violation of the basic tenet of Article 14 of the Constitution. That apart, the provision is arbitrary and unreasonable. (c) The right to information is a basic human right and has to be progressive but by incorporating section 24 in the Act, the said basic human right is absolutely smothered and consequent of which the growth of democracy is scuttled which affects the basic structure of the Constitution. 14. Learned counsel to bolster the said submissions has commended us to the decisions in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, State of UP. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428, Indian Express v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 641, Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay (P.) Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 592, PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays from the date of the receipt of request. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule. (3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament. (4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It represents only an important element in it; but there are other elements. One such element is the administration of justice. The claim of the Executive to have exclusive and conclusive power to determine what is in public interest is a claim based on the assumption that the Executive alone knows what is best for the citizen. The claim of the Executive to exclude evidence is more likely to operate to sub-serve a partial interest, viewed exclusively from a narrow department angle. It is impossible for it to see or give equal weight to another matter, namely, that justice should be done and seen to be done. When there are more aspects of public interest to be considered, the Court will, with reference to the pending litigation, be in a better position to decide where the weight of public interest predominates. 72. The power reserved to the Court is a power to order production even though public interest is to some extent prejudicially affected. This amounts to a recognition that more than one aspect of public interest will have to be surveyed. The interests of Government for which the minister speaks do not exhaust the whole public interest. Another aspect of that interest is see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess information, matters which could cause serious prejudice to the State like national security. It has been observed therein that documents in relation to these matters might fall in a class which per se require protection and, therefore, form a separate class. However, word of caution has been sounded and an opinion has been expressed that the Executive is not solely responsible for public interest though they represent an important element in it. The Court, in a given case and when a situation warrants, can weigh which public interest predominates. In a particular case when a larger public interest warrants access to certain information, objection of the Executive can be overruled. In the present case, we are not concerned with the power of Court to decide Executive's claim for privilege viz. a particular public interest. This is not the subject matter in issue before us. The Act does not curtail or do away with the powers of the court and the petitioner's right to approach the court in accordance with law, if the situation warrants. The Act, on the other hand, provides machinery for easy, inexpensive and fast access to information, which should not be per se denied to the cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; 1 [and] 2 ** ** ** (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence." 24. On a perusal of Article 19, it is clear that every citizen shall have a right to freedom of speech and expression, but the same is not absolute and the State while making law can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by the State under sub-clause (a) of clause 1 in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defama....