Government Privileges in Legal Proceedings Ppt

In 1993, the UK government published a White Paper on Open Government and proposed a voluntary code of conduct for the provision of information. This code is voluntary and therefore cannot be equated with the statutory law on access to information. Today, secrecy prevails in India not only in all areas of government administration, but also in public institutions. Statutory or non-legal. Everywhere, there is a feeling that it pays to play it safe. Even routine reports on social issues remain confidential long after they have been submitted. What is spent depends on the whims of a minister or bureaucrat. The result is that there is no debate on important issues and no feedback to the government on the reaction of the population. The stronger the secrecy efforts, the greater the likelihood of abuse of power by officials.

In some cases, administrative secrecy is required. No one wants secret documents on domestic resistance and foreign policy to be released before the end of the usual 35-year period. Secrecy may also be invoked for other matters listed in the Freedom of Information Act 1966. But claims of secrecy, usually by the government and state institutions, can destroy the survival of democracy in India. Therefore, legislation is needed that recognizes the right to information, establishes rules for the „correct classification of information“ and holds the government accountable for justifying secrecy. This will not only strengthen the concept of open government, but also introduce accountability into the system of government., Apart from government, there is no justification for secrecy in state-owned enterprises, except in a very limited area of industrial espionage. Sometimes there seems to be a conflict between the right to know and the right to privacy of public figures, through which the machinery of government passes. Our experience in India suggests that a public figure should not be protected against disclosure of his or her private life, which is important for public functions with the objection that he or she has a right to privacy.

The right to privacy should not be allowed as a pretext for suppressing information. This trend of follow-up litigants following documents that companies disclose during government investigations is expected to continue. The judiciary in the United States shares the same concern of Congress reflected in the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. Justice Douglas noted: „Secrecy within government is fundamentally undemocratic and perpetuates bureaucratic errors. Open discussion based on a broad information debate on issues of public interest is vital to our national health. In order to allow access to meetings of the Federal Government, Congress passed the Sunshine Act, Section 80 (1) of 1977 provides that no action shall be instituted against the Government or against a public official for any act allegedly committed by that public official in his or her official capacity before the expiration of two months from written notification in the manner provided in that section. The article is mandatory and does not allow exceptions. Thus, the termination requirement is mandatory. It should be noted, however, that if a public official acts without competence, the notification requirement is not mandatory. Its purpose seems to give the government or public official the opportunity to examine the legal situation and settle the claim without dispute. The Government may waive the notification requirement; The waiver may be express or implied.

The notification requirement causes great inconvenience to litigants, especially if they seek immediate redress against the government. In order to minimize difficulties for litigants, a new clause (20) was inserted into article 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 1970 Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure. The clause provides that the court may authorize a person to take legal action against the government or a public official without respecting the two-month notice period if the relief sought is immediate and urgent. Before granting this exemption, the Court must satisfy itself of the immediate and urgent need. It should be noted that Article 80 of the CCP does not apply to an action against a public company. Consequently, in the event that the action is brought against the body governed by public law. Therefore, such notification is not necessary where the action is brought against a body governed by public law. Section 80 does not apply to an action brought against the government before the Court of Appeal under the Motor Vehicle Act. Article 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to a written petition directed against the Government or a public official, and article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have to comply with the obligation of notification.