Verdictum: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.
The High Court distinguished between private documents kept by a public authority and public records of private documents, holding that the RTI Act does not alter the nature of the document supplied.
The Gujarat High Court has held that private documents obtained under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 do not automatically become public documents within
the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 merely because
they are supplied by a public authority.
The Court further held that true copies of such private documents cannot be treated as certified copies under Section 65(e) or Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act unless the party seeking to rely on them first lays the foundation for proving them as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), (b) or (c).
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the trial court in a civil suit, by which documents produced by the plaintiffs through a document list were exhibited on the ground that they had been received under RTI.
A Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat held: “Accordingly, I hold that the aforesaid three documents in question are not public documents within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, 1872. Merely because they obtained under RTI, they cannot be treated as certified copies as per clause (e) or (f) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872. I also hold that unless a foundation lay down by the plaintiffs to prove those documents as secondary evidence as per clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872, these documents cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. Consequently, at this stage, they cannot be exhibited. Thus, a burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove these documents as a secondary evidence in accordance with law.”
Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia appeared for the respondents.
Background:
The dispute arose in a civil suit filed for partition, maintenance, declaration and permanent injunction before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
At the stage of completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking to place additional documents on record and have them exhibited. The trial court allowed the application and gave exhibit numbers to the documents.
The defendants challenged the order only in relation to three documents. These were completion certificates of two bungalows issued by an architect and a family partition agreement. The documents had been received by the plaintiffs under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation.
The defendants contended that the documents were private documents and did not become public documents merely because they were obtained from a public authority under RTI. The plaintiffs argued that the documents were certified copies issued by a public authority and were admissible under Section 74(2) read with Section 77 of the Evidence Act.
Court’s Observations:
The High Court noted that the trial court had accepted the documents only because they were received under RTI and treated them as public documents without properly addressing the objection raised by the defendants.
The Court observed, “The facts noted at the outset are not in dispute. It appears that the trial court has accepted the additional documents submitted by the plaintiffs vide impugned application, solely on the ground that they were received by the plaintiffs under RTI and being public documents, thus, they are admissible in evidence. I could not find any other reason than observed above.”
It further observed, “As observed above, the trial court has not considered the objections of the defendants, rather assumed that the aforesaid documents are public documents, as received under RTI, accordingly exhibited those documents. No other and further reason assigned.”
The Court examined Sections 61 to 65 and Sections 74 to 77 of the Evidence Act and held that the disputed documents were private documents. It then considered whether they could become public documents under Section 74(2), which deals with public records kept in any State of private documents.
The Court held, “The documents which are disputed by the defendants undoubtedly are private documents, inasmuch as they could not be said to be public documents in any manner whatsoever.”
After referring to Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and others (2021), Smt. Rekha Rana and others v. Smt. Ratnashree Jain (2006), N.N. Global Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) and Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah v. State of Gujarat and others (1989), the Court held that a private document does not itself become a public document merely because a public record of it exists.
The Court explained, “Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position as it stands today, 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 rejected the submission that documents received under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation became public documents for that reason alone.
The Court held, “The plaintiffs have indisputably received the aforesaid documents in question under RTI from SMC. As observed above, the documents are private documents and for any purpose submitted to SMC. 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.”
The Court clarified that documents received under RTI may be treated as certified copies if the underlying document is a public document. However, this principle does not apply to private documents merely supplied as true copies by the Public Information Officer.
The Court observed, “Yet, the photo copy of documents certified by the designated Public Information Officer under RTI of private documents are not themselves the certified copy within the provisions of Section 65 of the Act,1872. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the particular Department.”
The Court held that true copies of private documents obtained under RTI may be produced only after satisfying the statutory requirements for secondary evidence.
The Court observed, “The production and marking of such copies are permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872.”
Agreeing with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Kumarpal N. Shah v. Universal Mechanical Works Private Limited (2019), the Court held that a private document obtained under RTI does not lose its private character and the party relying on it must lead evidence explaining non-availability of the original.
The Court separately noted that the genuineness of the family partition agreement was disputed by the defendants. It recorded that, pursuant to a criminal complaint, the Executive Magistrate whose seal and signature appeared on the document had stated before police that neither the seal nor the signature was his.
The Court observed, “Nonetheless, for the reasons supra, the aforesaid document, i.e., the family partition agreement though received under RTI by the plaintiffs, would not automatically become a public document as per the provisions of the Act, 1872 and 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 held that the trial court’s reasoning was unsustainable because it exhibited the documents after treating them as public documents merely on the basis of RTI supply.
The Court observed, “I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while giving exhibits to the aforesaid three documents by treating them as public documents is nothing but a gross error of law and the view taken by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law.”
Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The trial court’s order was modified to the extent that the three disputed documents could be admitted as secondary evidence only after the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled.
The High Court directed the trial court to de-exhibit the three documents at that stage. It clarified that once the plaintiffs prove the documents in accordance with law, the trial court may exhibit them. The order was not disturbed in relation to the remaining documents.
The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit at the earliest and conclude the trial as early as possible. The request made by the plaintiffs to suspend the order for two weeks was refused. No costs were imposed.
Cause Title: Rajeshbhai Krushnakant Jariwala & Ors. v. Falguniben Kamalkant Jariwala & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall with Advocate Mrugen K. Purohit
Respondents: Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia
(Click here to download Judgment)
The High Court distinguished between private documents kept by a public authority and public records of private documents, holding that the RTI Act does not alter the nature of the document supplied.
The Court further held that true copies of such private documents cannot be treated as certified copies under Section 65(e) or Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act unless the party seeking to rely on them first lays the foundation for proving them as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), (b) or (c).
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the trial court in a civil suit, by which documents produced by the plaintiffs through a document list were exhibited on the ground that they had been received under RTI.
A Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat held: “Accordingly, I hold that the aforesaid three documents in question are not public documents within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, 1872. Merely because they obtained under RTI, they cannot be treated as certified copies as per clause (e) or (f) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872. I also hold that unless a foundation lay down by the plaintiffs to prove those documents as secondary evidence as per clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872, these documents cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. Consequently, at this stage, they cannot be exhibited. Thus, a burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove these documents as a secondary evidence in accordance with law.”
Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia appeared for the respondents.
Background:
The dispute arose in a civil suit filed for partition, maintenance, declaration and permanent injunction before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
At the stage of completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking to place additional documents on record and have them exhibited. The trial court allowed the application and gave exhibit numbers to the documents.
The defendants challenged the order only in relation to three documents. These were completion certificates of two bungalows issued by an architect and a family partition agreement. The documents had been received by the plaintiffs under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation.
The defendants contended that the documents were private documents and did not become public documents merely because they were obtained from a public authority under RTI. The plaintiffs argued that the documents were certified copies issued by a public authority and were admissible under Section 74(2) read with Section 77 of the Evidence Act.
Court’s Observations:
The High Court noted that the trial court had accepted the documents only because they were received under RTI and treated them as public documents without properly addressing the objection raised by the defendants.
The Court observed, “The facts noted at the outset are not in dispute. It appears that the trial court has accepted the additional documents submitted by the plaintiffs vide impugned application, solely on the ground that they were received by the plaintiffs under RTI and being public documents, thus, they are admissible in evidence. I could not find any other reason than observed above.”
It further observed, “As observed above, the trial court has not considered the objections of the defendants, rather assumed that the aforesaid documents are public documents, as received under RTI, accordingly exhibited those documents. No other and further reason assigned.”
The Court examined Sections 61 to 65 and Sections 74 to 77 of the Evidence Act and held that the disputed documents were private documents. It then considered whether they could become public documents under Section 74(2), which deals with public records kept in any State of private documents.
The Court held, “The documents which are disputed by the defendants undoubtedly are private documents, inasmuch as they could not be said to be public documents in any manner whatsoever.”
After referring to Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and others (2021), Smt. Rekha Rana and others v. Smt. Ratnashree Jain (2006), N.N. Global Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) and Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah v. State of Gujarat and others (1989), the Court held that a private document does not itself become a public document merely because a public record of it exists.
The Court explained, “Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position as it stands today, 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 rejected the submission that documents received under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation became public documents for that reason alone.
The Court held, “The plaintiffs have indisputably received the aforesaid documents in question under RTI from SMC. As observed above, the documents are private documents and for any purpose submitted to SMC. 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.”
The Court clarified that documents received under RTI may be treated as certified copies if the underlying document is a public document. However, this principle does not apply to private documents merely supplied as true copies by the Public Information Officer.
The Court observed, “Yet, the photo copy of documents certified by the designated Public Information Officer under RTI of private documents are not themselves the certified copy within the provisions of Section 65 of the Act,1872. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the particular Department.”
The Court held that true copies of private documents obtained under RTI may be produced only after satisfying the statutory requirements for secondary evidence.
The Court observed, “The production and marking of such copies are permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872.”
Agreeing with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Kumarpal N. Shah v. Universal Mechanical Works Private Limited (2019), the Court held that a private document obtained under RTI does not lose its private character and the party relying on it must lead evidence explaining non-availability of the original.
The Court separately noted that the genuineness of the family partition agreement was disputed by the defendants. It recorded that, pursuant to a criminal complaint, the Executive Magistrate whose seal and signature appeared on the document had stated before police that neither the seal nor the signature was his.
The Court observed, “Nonetheless, for the reasons supra, the aforesaid document, i.e., the family partition agreement though received under RTI by the plaintiffs, would not automatically become a public document as per the provisions of the Act, 1872 and 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 held that the trial court’s reasoning was unsustainable because it exhibited the documents after treating them as public documents merely on the basis of RTI supply.
The Court observed, “I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while giving exhibits to the aforesaid three documents by treating them as public documents is nothing but a gross error of law and the view taken by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law.”
Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The trial court’s order was modified to the extent that the three disputed documents could be admitted as secondary evidence only after the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled.
The High Court directed the trial court to de-exhibit the three documents at that stage. It clarified that once the plaintiffs prove the documents in accordance with law, the trial court may exhibit them. The order was not disturbed in relation to the remaining documents.
The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit at the earliest and conclude the trial as early as possible. The request made by the plaintiffs to suspend the order for two weeks was refused. No costs were imposed.
Cause Title: Rajeshbhai Krushnakant Jariwala & Ors. v. Falguniben Kamalkant Jariwala & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall with Advocate Mrugen K. Purohit
Respondents: Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia
(Click here to download Judgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
