DIVAKAR S NATARAJAN Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRANSPARENT functioning of the agencies of a State would go a very long way in providing not only peace and tranquility to its citizens, but also would enable them to lead respectable and meaningful life. Many a time, the citizens feel aggrieved, on account of their not being able to have access to the information, in relation to the matters of their immediate concern. More and more the information is withheld, a citizen would tend to gain an impression, that he is denied what is legitimately due to him, in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

(2.) HOWSOEVER desirable it may be, to ensure complete openness in state activity, by its very nature, governance requires certain amount of confidentiality, at least in some of its facets. A decent balance needs to be maintained between the two conflicting phenomena. An enlightened citizenry and a responsible Government, with their collective effort, can certainly bring about an ideal situation. It is a continuous process and one cannot expect instant and immediate results. The Domestic Laws and International Conventions emphasize upon the freedom of an individual to hold an opinion for himself, and at the same time, espouse his right to seek furnishing information on any aspect, of his choice. For instance, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, reads as under:

(3.) THE provisions of various domestic enactments and international conventions are almost similar, with semantic changes and with slight difference as to emphasis. Difficulty in enacting provisions, that can maintain equilibrium between these two conflicting ideas, has been felt, and it is too early to say that any perfection, in this regard, has been achieved.