association between held and the authority
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL ….. RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10045 OF 2010
A N D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2683 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
N.V. RAMANA, J.
20. Firstly, the appellants have contended that the information are
not held with the Registry of the Supreme Court, rather the Chief
Justice of India is holding the aforesaid information concerning
the exchanges between Mr. Justice R. Reghupati and the then
Chief Justice of India. In this context, the term ‘held’ acquires
important position. The term ‘held’ usually connotes the power,
custody, or possession with the person. However, the mandate of
the Act requires this term to be interpreted wherein the
association between held and the authority needs to be taken into
14
consideration while providing a meaning for the aforesaid term.
At this juncture, we need to observe the case of University of New
Castle upon Tyne v. Information Commissioner and British
Union for Abolition of Vivisection, [2011] UKUT 185 AAC,
wherein the upper tribunal has held as under –
“‘Hold’ is an ordinary English word. In
our judgment it is not used in some
technical sense in the Act. We do not
consider that it is appropriate to define
its meaning by reference to concepts
such as legal possession or bailment, or
by using phrases taken from court rules
concerning the obligation to give
disclosure of documents in litigation.
Sophisticated legal analysis of its
meaning is not required or appropriate.
However, it is necessary to observe that
‘holding’ is not a purely physical
concept, and it has to be understood
with the purpose of the Act in mind.
Section 3(2)(b) illustrates this: an
authority cannot evade the
requirements of the Act by having its
information held on its behalf by some
other person who is not a public
authority. Conversely, we consider that
s.1 would not apply merely because
information is contained in a document
that happens to be physically on the
authority’s premises: there must be an
appropriate connection between the
information and the authority, so that it
can be properly said that the
information is held by the authority. For
example, an employee of the authority
15
may have his own personal information
on a document in his pocket while at
work, or in the drawer of his office desk;
that does not mean that the information
is held by the authority.”
21. From the aforesaid it can be concluded that a similar
interpretation can be provided for term ‘held’ as occurring under
Section 2(j) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the same the term
‘held’ does not include following information –
1. That is, without request or arrangement, sent to or
deposited with a public authority which does not hold itself
out as willing to receive it and which does not
subsequently use it;
2. That is accidentally left with a public authority;
3. That just passes through a public authority;
4. That ‘belongs’ to an employee or officer of a public
authority but which is brought by that employee or officer
onto the public authority’s premises.
1