Mere File Notings Are Not Government Decisions & Carry No Legal Sanctity: Orissa High Court Denies Disclosure Of Sealed Cover Documents

"A mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity", Orissa High Court has held that internal file notings recorded by government officials do not constitute a formal decision of the State and do not confer any enforceable rights upon citizens.

A single-judge bench of Justice A.C. Behera, while dealing with a row over documents submitted in a "sealed cover," observed that such notings are merely expressions of opinion and carry no legal weight unless they are communicated as a formal order in the name of the Governor.

Court Clarifies Right To Information vs National Security

The court noted that while citizens generally have a right to know about the activities of the State under Article 19 of the Constitution, this right is not absolute. The bench observed that the "privilege of secrecy" has evolved, yet the State remains entitled to impose reasonable restrictions when national security or integrity is at stake.

The court further emphasized that in matters of general administration, the public’s right to know how the State functions is vital. However, it clarified that this transparency does not extend to every internal deliberation that has not yet reached the stage of a final, authenticated executive decision.

The matter arose during the hearing of several writ petitions where the Advocate General of Odisha submitted certain government notings in a sealed cover to the Court. After the bench perused these documents and re-sealed them, the petitioners filed Interlocutory Applications (I.As) seeking copies of these notings. They argued that non-disclosure violated the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

The petitioners contended that since the Court had already perused the documents, there was a risk of judicial bias. Conversely, the State filed a memo seeking the return of the sealed cover, stating it no longer intended to rely on those notings, asserting they were "privileged documents."

Legal Status of File Notings: Notings Are Not Decisions

The primary question before the court was whether these internal notings must be disclosed to the petitioners. The Court relied heavily on settled precedents to hold that file notings are merely "internal matters." It observed that a noting does not become a government decision unless it is sanctified under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

"The notings and/or the decisions recorded in the file of the Government do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can neither be challenged in a Court nor made basis for seeking relief," the Court held.

Precedents on Executive Deliberations

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish to reinforce that notings are "noting simpliciter." It noted that even if a competent authority records a certain view in a file, that view can be reviewed, reversed, or overturned by higher authorities before a final order is issued.

The bench reiterated that unless an order is issued in the name of the President or Governor and communicated to the affected person, the internal deliberations remain legally toothless. Such documents, the court held, cannot be used as a foundation for legal claims by third parties.

Addressing Concerns of Judicial Bias

To address the petitioners' fear that the Court’s prior perusal of the sealed documents might influence the final judgment, the bench adopted a middle path. While it refused to supply the documents to the petitioners, it also refused to return the documents to the State.

The Court held that the ends of justice would be met if the notings are neither opened nor referred to in the final judgment. By placing the documents in the safe custody of the Registry, the Court ensured that the contents would not play a role in the adjudication of the main writ petitions.

The Court dismissed the petitioners' applications for disclosure and also rejected the State’s prayer to return the sealed cover. It directed the Secretary of the Court to hand over the sealed cover to the Registrar (Judicial) for safe custody.

"The notings of the Government kept in the sealed cover shall neither be opened nor any notings in the same shall be referred either in the judgments of the I.As. or in the writ petitions," the bench ordered, ensuring the documents remain insulated from the final decision-making process.

The ruling reaffirms the legal position that internal government deliberations are not "decisions" and do not create rights or liabilities until they are formally promulgated. By refusing to return the documents while simultaneously denying disclosure, the Orissa High Court sought to balance administrative confidentiality with the requirements of a fair and unbiased trial.

Date of Decision: 27 April 2026