Loading...

User Queries right to information article 32 reservation fundamental rights "right to information" judicial review l chandra kumar \"right to information\" l. chandra kumar public document basic structure chandra kumar public documents article 143 caste l.chandra kumar explosive fundamental right ph.d scheduled caste Karnataka High Court K. Ravikumar vs Bangalore University And Anr. on 4 October, 2004 Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Kant 21, ILR 2004 KAR 4733, 2004 (6) KarLJ 47 Author: R Gururajan Bench: R Gururajan ORDER R. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner-Ravikumar is seeking a direction to the first respondent to furnish the appointment order as well as marks list of the second respondent in the following circumstances. 2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste for the purpose of reservation. First respondentUniversity invited applications to fill up backlog vacancies to various posts including to the post of Lecturer in Sericulture. Petitioner applied for the same. According to the petitioner, he is a merited candidate and that he secured 66.7 per cent marks in M.Sc. in Sericulture, 75.4 per cent in M.Phil. in Sericulture. He is also awarded with Ph.D in Sericulture for his thesis on "Survey and Control of Giant-African Snail (Achatina Fulica Bowdich), a serious pest on Mulberry". He has taught as honorary lecturer in Sericulture faculty of the Bangalore University and has also published several articles. He has also participated in national and international gatherings and symposia. According to him, second respondent was appointed and the said appointment suffers from arbitrariness.

3. After notice, University entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. The University states that it is not under any obligation to furnish copies as sought for in the case on hand and that what is sought are confidential in nature. It wants the petition to be dismissed. Second respondent has not chosen to enter appearance. 4. Heard Sri Jagadish, learned Counsel for the petitioner and he would say that public authorities are duty-bound to provide certain material information if sought for by an individual, and that cannot be denied as has been done in the case on hand. He says that the given circumstances would show that he intends to avail judicial remedy and that remedy is being frustrated on account of non-availability of the order in question, and that he wants a direction in this regard. Per contra, the University's Counsel would say chat no right is available to the petitioner in the case on hand. 5. After hearing I have carefully perused the material on record. 6. This Court has noticed similar pleas in similar cases. Whenever an individual seeks for certain information the same is flatly denied by public authorities without even noticing the relevancy for such requests, and this is one such case. Petitioner admittedly is an aspirant for the post of Lecturer in terms of Annexure-A and the case of second respondent was considered by the University. Therefore, naturally the petitioner would like to contest the act of the University in terms of his right available to him by way of judicial proceedings. To avail that remedy he has to have the order appointing the second respondent, as otherwise his remedy would be meaningless, as Courts would not entertain his plea in the absence of documents. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the request of the petitioner is unreasonable in the given circumstances. 7. The Supreme Court In re Under Article 143, Constitution of India, , , has considered the power of the High Court under Article 226 and the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled as under. " .... The existence of judicial power in that behalf must necessarily and inevitably postulate the existence of a right in the citizen to move the Court in that behalf; otherwise the power conferred on the High Courts and this Court would, be rendered virtually meaningless. Let it not be forgotten that the judicial power conferred on the High Courts and this Court is meant for the protection of the citizens' fundamental rights, and so, in the existence of the said judicial power itself is necessarily involved the right of the citizen to appeal to the said power in a proper case". 8. In fact at this stage I must notice the famous judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., . The Supreme Court has noticed the object and importance of judicial review in such matters. The Supreme Court has noticed various judgments which emphasize that judicial review has become an integral part of the constitutional system. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that.-"it appears that this Court has always considered the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and in this Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively, enabling legislative action to be subjected to the scrutiny of superior Courts, to be integral to our constitutional scheme".

The Court further ruled that.-" ... the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure". 9. At this stage, I must also notice two recent enactments in the matter, namely the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. These two Acts would show that the order of the day is to permit openness, transparency and accountability in administration. It is unnecessary for me to notice at this stage as to whether any right available to the petitioner in terms of these two acts. The present tendency/attitude is for transparency and openness in the matter of administration. When an individual wants to enforce his right in terms of his constitutional rights, same cannot be frustrated by denying document for the purpose of judicial review. In the case on hand, appointment letter of second respondent has nexus with the object of availing judicial review. In the circumstances, without going into detail with regard to availability of the remedy in terms of two enactments, I deem it proper to exercise my constitutional power and direct the respondent-University to provide appointment letter of the second respondent to the petitioner in the case on hand in the given circumstances. At the same time, I deem it proper to deny marks list as sought for by the petitioner. That is for the University to retain for official purpose, and, in the event of the petitioner availing any judicial remedy, the University certainly would place those documents in support of the same. At present, that document is unnecessary to the petitioner. 10. Before concluding, I deem it proper to observe that in the light of the policy of the Government on transparency and openness, the authorities cannot flatly deny any document on the ground of confidentiality or secret in such matters. Mere repetition of the words would not provide confidential/secret colour to a public document. Transparency and openness provide a right of information to a citizen for enforcing his constitutional right of judicial review in a Court of law. In the circumstances, I deem it proper to observe that the authorities normally have to provide document sought for to an individual if the said document has nexus with the judicial remedy in accordance with law. 11. I also deem it proper to direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Law Secretary, Government of Karnataka, who, in turn is directed to circulate this judgment to all the authorities including the Universities, various Departments of Government for information and for needful action, as otherwise, there would be unnecessary writ petitions in this Court only for the purpose of a direction for production for such information for judicial review. This direction is issued to arrest docket explosion of this Court. 12. Writ petition stands allowed in the above manner. No costs.