Private Documents Obtained From Public Authority Under RTI Act Don't Become Public Documents: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a private document which is stored in a public office, sought and obtained under Right To Information Act does not automatically become public document under the Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act unless kept as a public record. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 224]The court also held that even the certified true copies of such private documents obtained under RTI also...
The Gujarat High Court has held that a private document which is stored in a public office, sought and obtained under Right To Information Act does not automatically become public document under the Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act unless kept as a public record. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 224]
The court also held that even the certified true copies of such private documents obtained under RTI also does not constitute a public document.
As per Section 74(2) public records of private documents kept in any State, amounts to a public document.
The court was hearing a plea against a trial court order taking on record documents exhibited by the plaintiffs in a partition dispute, which were certified copies issued by the concerned bank and Surat Municipal Corporation. The defendant had objected to this arguing that the documents sought to be exhibited were not public documents and without proving them in accordance with law, they cannot be exhibited.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice Maulik J Shelat in his order held:
"it is abundantly clear that a private document of which public record is kept does not in itself constitute a public document. However, the public record of such private document kept in any State is a public document. To put it simply, a private document merely stored or available in a public office does not automatically become a public document unless it is kept as public record".
The court said that the plaintiffs had received the documents in question under RTI from Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC). The documents are private documents and for any purpose submitted to SMC, the court said.
"Since the documents submitted on record of the case are photostat copies of the documents whose records are kept by SMC, their certified/true copy obtained through under RTI Act, 2005 do not constitute public documents. In my considered view, these private documents do not, in themselves, constitute public documents within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, 1872, merely because they are kept by SMC," the court added.
The high court said that the documents which are disputed by the defendants undoubtedly are private documents, in as much as they could not be said to be public documents in any manner whatsoever.
The high court also ruled that the family partition agreement received under RTI by the plaintiffs, would also not automatically become a public document as per the provisions Evidence Act 1872.
It said that even if it may be admitted as secondary evidence, first the plaintiffs are required to lay its foundation and prove it in accordance with law.
The court thus set aside the trial court order and allowed the defendants plea.
Case title: RAJESHBHAI KRUSHNAKANT JARIWALA & ORS. v/s FALGUNIBEN KAMALKANT JARIWALA & ORS.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17104 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
Appearance: MR RR MARSHALL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3