Article 12 defines ‘State’ within the parameters of the Constitution of India. The definition of ‘State’ is conclusive by the virtue of so many jurisprudences evolved by the Supreme Court but still there are so many doubts in the mind of law makers and executors of law regarding the definition of State. Similarly, there are so many doubts regarding the definition of ‘Public Authority’ in the mind of the people at large. Some jurisprudences say every public office comes within the definition of ‘Public Authority’ under RTI Act; while some excludes certain offices from the purview of ‘Public Authority’ under RTI Act. These confusion regarding the definition of State under the Constitution of India and definition of ‘Public Authority’ under RTI Act is a matter of serious concern. In this context it is important to understand that this controversy of deciding what comes within the domain ‘State’ under the Constitution of India and what comes within the domain of ‘Public Authority’ creates serious questions of governance. Hence it important and inevitable to exhaustively define the conundrum of the ‘State’ as well as ‘Public Authority’. So that the distinction can be made between the two.

Access to Justice Vis-À-Vis RTI

In India today, the state has spread its tentacles to virtually every aspect of public life. The person on the street is condemned to grapple hopelessly with corruption in almost every aspect of daily work and living. Most government offices typically present a picture of a public bewildered and harassed by opaque rules and procedures and inordinate delays, constantly vulnerable to exploitation by employees and touts. In the quest for systemic answers to this chronic malaise, it is important to identify the sources of corruption inherent within the character of the state machine. These include a determined denial of transparency, accessibility and accountability, cumbersome and confusing procedures, proliferation of mindless controls and poor commitment at all levels to real results of public welfare. In this chapter, the researcher has argued that information is power and that the executive at all levels attempts to withhold information to increase its scope for control, patronage and the arbitrary, corrupt and unaccountable exercise of power. Therefore, demystification of rules and procedures, complete transparency and pro-active dissemination of this relevant information amongst the public is potentially a very strong safeguard against corruption. Ultimately the most effective systemic check on corruption would be where the citizen herself or himself has the right to take the initiative to seek information from the state and thereby to enforce transparency and accountability. In this chapter the researcher has tried to elucidate the aspect of access to information by the virtue of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby, the term ‘information’ means any material in any form including records, memos, emails, advice, press release, circulars, orders, logbooks, reports, papers, models, data etc. held by public authorities [1].

Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeks to confer on citizens of India, a right to access to information held by public authorities. It may be mentioned that only citizens have the right to information and he should be a living person and not a juridical person like a company or an incorporate body. To understand this notion of access to information, the researcher explains the relationship between an individual and the State. He also attempts to highlight the role played by the Right to Information Act, 2005 in accessing information from the State to make it accountable with respect to matters relating to the administration of justice.

According to Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, every Public Authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the right of information and ensures that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the Country on different systems so as to facilities access of such records [2].

Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 4 enumerates as many as seventeen items (clause (b)(i) to (xvii) [3] which need to be updated every year.

The expression ‘dissemination’ for the purpose of Section 4 mean making known or communicated, the information to the public through notice-boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means including inspection of offices of any public authority [4].

The Act further requires that mere publication of information as specified above will not be enough, the information so disseminated should be: (i) cost-effective, (ii) given or published in local language and (iii) released in most effective mode of communication [5].

Clause (4) of section 4 casts a duty on every public authority to maintain records and publish manuals, rules, regulation, instructions etc. in its possession.

The question of non-payment of old age pension by the Municipal Corporation New Delhi to retired personnel was raised in the case of Ms. Saroj v Municipal Corporation of Delhi [6]. The complainants pleaded that they had not been paid old age pension since April, 2007 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi had failed to provide detailed information on the pension scheme on its website. It was held that every public authority is required to publish within 120 days from the enactment of the RTI Act, the manner of execution of subsidy programs including details of beneficiaries and amounts allocated etc., as per the requirements of Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) and 4(1){d) of the of the Right to Information Act.

In the case of K.G. Mallia v Passport Office Ghaziabad,[7] the appellant sought information about his status in getting a duplicate passport in a case of lost passport. The Commission held that the information should have been normally put on the website of the Passport Office vide Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act. The Ministry should ensure that such information is readily available on the website. Taking note of the serious delay in responding to the Right to Information application, the CIC directed the Chief Passport Officer to enquire into the matter and take strict action against the erring official.

Section 5 of the Right to Information Act provides that all administrative officers and departments units, sub-divisions etc. of every public authority shall designate Public Information Officers [8] (PIOs) to provide information to information seekers. These appointments are required to be mandatorily made within one hundred days from the date of coming into force of the Right to Information Act, i.e., 15th of June, 2005. The term ‘Administration’ for the purpose of this Act means management of the executive department of the Government. The public authority may designate as many CPIO/CAPIO or SPIO/SAPIO as required keeping in view the proximity of approach.

Sub-section (3) of Section 5 Provides that Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer dealing with request for information from citizens should render reasonable assistance rather than putting hurdles in making the information available [9].

The Public Authority cannot refuse to accept the application merely on the ground that the same is not in the format prescribed by that public authority. It cannot be a ground for rejection of an application for request of information [10].

The information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) may be inadequate or may not be in the desired, format as sought by the applicant, but no action or legal proceeding shall lie against any Public Information Officer for anything done by him/her in good faith. This protection for acts done in good faith is provided to Public Information Officer under Section 21 of the Right to Information Act but as provided in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act 1897 and act shall be deemed to have been done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. Good faith indicates honesty and lawfulness of purpose where due care and attention is exercised.

The Public Information Officer should accept all applications for request of information under the Right to Information Act which are accompanied with the prescribed fee. However, persons falling below the poverty line’ (BPL) category are not required to pay fee and the information shall be provided to them free of cost. However, they have to produce BPL Card to indicate that no fee is required to be paid by them [11].

Sub-section (5) of Section 5 makes every officer in the public authority vigilant to render adequate and timely assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be and any default in this resulting into failure to make the information available shall render them equally responsible along with the Central Public Information Officer/State Public Information Officer

A request for obtaining information can be made by a citizen [12] to the public Information Officer (PIO) or the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO), under Sections 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, It has to be made in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in official local language of the area in which the application is, being filed. The application should be accompanied by the prescribed fee. However no fee will be charged from a person who is living below the poverty line. He has only to enclose copy of Below Poverty Line (BPL) card along with the application

The person making a request for information under Section 6 of the Act is not required to state reasons as to why and for what he is making the request for information [13]. He is also not required to give personal details except those necessary for contacting him.

There are some information’s which are exempt from being disclosed and the information Officer shall not be obliged to give such exempted information to citizen. It, therefore, follows that the obligation to give information to any citizen provided in the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not absolute but is subject to certain exemptions. The grounds on which disclosure of Information may be refused are enumerated in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which are as follows:

• Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, scientific or economic interest of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of offence

• Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by the Court of law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which may cause contempt of Court

• Information the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privileges in Parliament or the State Legislature

• Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or Intel property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a Third Party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger problems interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information

• Information received in confidence from foreign Government

• Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physted safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose.

• Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders

• Information relating to cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers

• Information which relates to personal information the Disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would came unwarranted un-warranted invasion of the privacy of the individual; Sub-section (2) of Section 8 provides authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests [14]

Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 8 provides that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The High Court of Calcutta, in Preetam Rooj v University of Calcutta, [15] held that for deciding whether information should be disclosed or not, the test of public interest is to be applied to see if any of the exemptions of Section 8(1) apply to the case. Even if the information is covered under any of the exemptions, (specially under Section 8(1) (j) it may still be disclosed if it is in larger public interest. The Court made it clear that the umbrella of exemptions must be kept confined to the specific provisions in that regard and no “further exception may be conjured up by strained devise of construction.

In Vibhor Dileep Barla v DG. Military Intelligence, Army H.Q. Delhi, [16] the appellant wanted to ascertain whether a certain Army Officer was the same personal as the one with similar name who entered into a land deal, which he suspected to be benami. The appellant had asked for details regarding the appellants employment with the Army, punishments awarded to him, if any, whether there was a record of his having entered into a land deal, source of income etc. The CIC held that personal details of an employee cannot be made available to a stranger, irrespective of purpose for which such details were required because mere suspicion against a person cannot constitute the basis for a public purpose.

Keeping the above stated law into the consideration the fact of the matter is that we have ample statutory provisions under Right to Information Act, 2005 and all such provisions talks about access to justice. But still people cannot be able to access law and facilities embedded under written law. It is sorry affair and need to be addressed.

Definition of State under Article 12

Article 12 includes:

• The Parliament and the Govt. of India i.e., Executive and Legislative of the Union

• The Govt. and the Legislature of each State i.e. Executive and Legislature of the State

• All Local and other authorities within the territories of India

• All local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India

  • By or under the Constitution (viz. the Vice President, the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the Union Cabinet, the Judges of the Supreme Court and, High Court, the Chief Minister and Cabinet Ministers of the State, Elections Commission of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India , Attorney-General of India. Union Public Service Commission, State Public Service Commision, National Commission for SC/ST, Administrative Tribunals, Judges of the subordinate court, Finance Commission and such other institutions as constituted)

For the first time the term “other authorities” must be construed “ejusdem generis” with the Government or Legislature and so construed, can only mean authorities be exercising governmental functions [17]. But this views of the High Court of Madras was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in “ejusdem generis” could not be applied in interpreting the expression “other authorities” occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court held that there is no common genus running through these named bodies can be placed in one single category on any rational basis [18]. The Supreme Court declared ONGC, LIC and IFCI are within the meaning the meaning of the term “other authorities”. Furthermore, the State being an abstract entity could undertake trade or business under Article 298 via agency, an instrumentality or a juristic person. Statutory Corporations are agency/instrumentalities of the State for carrying on trade and business which would otherwise be carried out by the State itself [19].

The supreme court developed a general proposition that an autonomous body would be considered an ‘authorities’, if it can be regarded as an ‘instrumentalities’ or ‘Agencies’ of the Government. The Court laid down guidelines to determine whether or not a body could be regarded as instrumentality of the Government [20]. The Apex Court finally removed all anomalies existing before it and held that “the true test is functional not how the legal person is born but why it is created”. When a body is controlled by the government and the function is public interest, it shows that the nexus is administrative. Similarly, when there is a financial control by the instrumentality of the State then the nexus is financial and control lies with the government [21]. 

The Supreme Court by applying administrative and financial control test laid down by Justice Krishna Iyer in Som Prakash Rekhi case was a comprehensive test for proper understanding of the term State within the corollary of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In another case Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [22] Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was declared as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution by the virtue of administrative and financial control corollary laid down in Som Prakash Rekhi case. Although in Sabhajit Tiwari v. Union of India [23] CSIR was declared as an autonomous body and not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India but reconsideration was sought in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology shows the impact of administrative and financial control theory.

In Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana Roadways[24], it was held that State Roadways is a statutory body under the control of the State Government and hence State within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution. In K.K. Saxena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage [25]. The omission of the judiciary, held, was not conclusive of its exclusion from the definition of State under Article 21 of the Constitution, while acting on the judicial side, the courts do not fall within the definition but when acting in an administrative capacity, they are covered under the definition. It was held in Riju Prasad Sharma v. State of Assam [26].

The above stated discussion shows that the jurisprudential development within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India from time to time elaborates the very important corollary of an instrumentality or the agency of the State. The question which remains to be answered is whether all public authorities are State within the dimension of Article 12 of the Constitution. 

Public Authority under RTI Act

Section 3 of the Right to Information Act confers on every citizen a right to seek information from the government or public authorities within the territory of India. There is no bar relating to the age, gender or location of the information seeker. It may be noted that the right to access to information is available only to a citizen of India and it includes information held by or under the control of any public authority. It, therefore, follows that a company corporation, co-operative society or incorporated body is not a person for the purpose of applicability of Section 3 of the Act [27].

The expression ‘Public Authority’ has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and it means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:

• By any other law made by Parliament (viz. UC, RBI, Nationalised Banks UGC, Central Universities, SEBI, Banking Service Commission, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, International Airport etc.).

• By one other law made State Legislature (viz. State Universities, State Housing Boards or State Electricity Broads, Municipal Corporations, Urban Development Authorities, State Govt. Companies etc.)

• By notification issued or order mad by the appropriate Government (viz. Competition Commission of India notified by the Central Govt. under Competition Act, 2002, Central Information Commission and State Information Commission notified under RTI Act; the Controller of Certifying Authorities notified by the Central Govt. under the Information Technology Act. 2000)

• The term ‘Public Authority’ also includes within it anybody owned, controlled or substantially financed and a Non-Government Organization (NGO) substantially financed by the appropriate Government (viz. Central Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks, State-aided Colleges and School, Export Promotion Council financed by the Central Government etc.) [28]

Public authorities owe an obligation to disseminate information and respond to the request for access to information by the citizens. All the state laws on the Right to Information impose a duty on public authority to give information which includes records as well as electronic materials relating to the government’s functioning and public bodies.

According to Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, every Public Authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the right of information and ensures that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the Country on different systems so as to facilities access of such records [29].

Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 4 enumerates as many as seventeen items (clause (b)(i) to (xvii) [30] which need to be updated every year.

The expression ‘dissemination’ for the purpose of Section 4 mean making known or communicated, the information to the public through notice-boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means including inspection of offices of any public authority [31].

The Act further requires that mere publication of information as specified above will not be enough, the information so disseminated should be: (i) cost-effective, (ii) given or published in local language and (iii) released in most effective mode of communication [32].

Clause (4) of section 4 casts a duty on every public authority to maintain records and publish manuals, rules, regulation, instructions etc, in its possession.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in Gurkirpal Singh Duggal, ONGC Ltd., [33] observed that the terms and conditions of appointment of Chief Management Director (CMD) Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) should be made public under Sections 4(l)(b)(ii) and 4(l)(b)(x) of the Right to Information Act and therefore, exemption from discloser claimed under Section 8(l)(j) of the Right to Information Act by the CPIO is not tenable.

In the case of S.C. Sharma. New Delhi v Central Bank of India. Mumbai [34] the CIC agreed with the contention of the appellant that “what cannot be denied to Parliament, cannot be denied to citizen”, but in the instant case there was nothing, on record to show that Parliament ever sought information regarding the internal instructions of the head office of the Bank for guidance of its officers and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a public document in terms of Section 4(l)(b)(v) of the of the Right to Information Act, Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The question of non-payment of old age pension by the Municipal Corporation New Delhi to retired personnel was raised in the case of Ms. Saroj v Municipal Corporation of Delhi [35]. The complainants pleaded that they had not been paid old age pension since April, 2007 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi had failed to provide detailed information on the pension scheme on its website. It was held that every public authority is required to publish within 120 days from the enactment of the RTI Act, the manner of execution of subsidy programs including details of beneficiaries and amounts allocated etc., as per the requirements of Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) and 4(1){d) of the of the Right to Information Act.

The CIC in the case of Ms. Gita Dewan Vernta v Ministry of Urban Development [36] held that making modification to the master plan with regard to public facility like Appu Ghar would undoubtedly affect public interest and therefore, dissemination of information regarding such modification was obligatory as per Section 4(l)(c) of the Right to Information Act which provides that “all public authorities shall publish all relevant facts while formulating policies and announcing decisions which affect public.” The CIC, therefore, directed the Ministry of Urban Development to ensure a compliance within 20 working daysfrom the date of the decision.

In the case of K.G. Mallia v Passport Office Ghaziabad [37], the appellant sought information about his status in getting a duplicate passport in a case of lost passport. The Commission held that the information should have been normally put on the website of the Passport Office vide Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act. The Ministry should ensure that such information is readily available on the website. Taking note of the serious delay in responding to the Right to Information application, the CIC directed the Chief Passport Officer to enquire into the matter and take strict action against the erring official.

It further directed that penal action under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act) be also initiated against the Public Information Officer (PIO) for inordinate delay in furnishing the required information.

In the context of public authorities being under a duty to disseminate information as required under Section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, it must be stated that this depends largely on the availability of some additional manpower to implement the law. There should be an effort on the part of public authorities to make available maximum information suo moto to the public duly updated at regular intervals.

It further directed that penal action under Section 20(1) of the Act) be also initiated against the Public Information Officer (PIO) for inordinate delay in furnishing the required information. 

In Sanjay Ramesh Shirodkar v. Mumbai International Airport Ltd. [38], the bench of Information Commissioners including Information Commissioner Suresh Chandra and Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that that the evolution of the definition of ‘state’ under article 12 of the constitution has been subsumed into the definition ‘public authority’ and the obligation of the disclosure of information is upon the public authority in contradiction of the private body.

The above stated discussion shows the dimension of RTI and expansion of the definition of Public Authority under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is quite understood that public authority is a wide term in modern democracy and hence require introspection from courts from time to time. In such circumstances we can say that the public authority is State within the definition of Article 12. 

The Som Prakash Rekhi case was a game changer and it established the very nature and understanding of the definition of State wherein it covers all such authorities, who have direct nexus means ‘administrative nexus’ and ‘financial nexuses. On the other hand, if we deliberate upon the true understanding of Right to Information Act, 2005 then the definition of Public Authority under section 2(h) can be understood from the perspective of legislative wisdom, while defining the expression intended to embrace only those categories, which ‘means’ and ‘includes’. When a word is defined to ‘means’ and ‘includes’ are used, the categories mentioned there would have exhaust themselves. As it includes an authority or body or institution of self-government established by or under the Constitution, an authority or body or institution of self-government established by or constituted by any other law made by Parliament, an authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the State Legislature and an authorities or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by notification, issued or order made by the appropriate Government.

Furthermore, the observation of the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd and Ors. V. State of Kerala and Ors [39], The Court held that Cooperative Societies neither met the threshold of control by the government required under the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution nor were ‘substantially financed’ by the government so as to qualify as a ‘public authority’ under RTI Act. 

On the basis of the above discussion, it can be said that the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and the definition of ‘Public Authority’ are more often ‘two faces of the same coin’. Hence the need of the hour is to balance this approach of understanding that unless the test of direct nexus means ‘administrative nexus’ and ‘financial nexuses have been established the institution should not been put under the definition of’ Public Authority’ or ‘State’. 

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 2(f).

2. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 4(1).

3. Right to Information Act, 2005. “Text of the Act.” Appendix I.

4. Right to Information Act, 2005. Explanation to § 4.

5. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 4(4).

6. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00803. Central Information Commission, March 2008.

7. Appeal No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00109. Central Information Commission, March 2007.

8. Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs), Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs), State Information Officers (SPIOs) and State Assistant Public Information Officers (SAPIOs).

9. Ajit Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00158, Central Information Commission, April 2007.

10. Madhu Bhaduri v. Delhi Development Authority. Appeal No. CIC/C/1/2006-CIC, Central Information Commission, April 2006.

11. Neeraj Kumar v. Department of Food and Supplies, Govt. of NCT Delhi. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00018, Central Information Commission, January 2006.

12. A company or body organization is not entitled to request information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

13. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 6(2).

14. Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Exemptions relating to disclosure prejudicial to tax collection, avoidance, or environmental concerns.

15. All India Reporter, 2008, Calcutta 118.

16. Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00659. Central Information Commission, March 2007.

17. University of Madras v. Shanta Bai. All India Reporter, 1962, Supreme Court 162.

18. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh. All India Reporter, 1962, Supreme Court 162.

19. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi. All India Reporter, 1975, Supreme Court 1331.

20. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India. All India Reporter, 1979, Supreme Court 1628.

21. Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India. All India Reporter, 1981, Supreme Court 212.

22. Supreme Court Cases, vol. 5, 2002.

23. All India Reporter, 1975, Supreme Court 1339.

24. Supreme Court Cases, vol. 10, 2014, p. 301.

25. Supreme Court Cases, vol. 9, 2015, p. 437.

26. Supreme Court Cases, vol. 9, 2015, p. 461.

27. Manoj Chaudhary v. Smt. Neemo Dhar and V.M. Bansal. Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00194, Central Information Commission, August 2006.

28. Anuj Dhar v. Cabinet Secretary. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00277, Central Information Commission, December 2006.

29. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 4(1).

30. Right to Information Act, 2005. “Text of the Act.” Appendix I.

31. Right to Information Act, 2005. Explanation to § 4.

32. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 4(4).

33. Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00048. Central Information Commission, March 2007.

34. Appeal No. 747/ICPB/2007. Central Information Commission, August 2007.

35. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00803. Central Information Commission, March 2008.

36. Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00662. Central Information Commission, April 2008.

37. Appeal No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00109. Central Information Commission, March 2007.

38. Complaint No. CIC/MA/C/2008/000195. Central Information Commission, December 2019.

39. Supreme Court Cases, 2013, p. 82.