The Right to Access Justice: Obtaining Certified Copies of Unmarked Documents in Indian Law

The Right to Access Justice: Obtaining Certified Copies of Unmarked Documents in Indian Law

Introduction

The principle of transparency in judicial proceedings is a cornerstone of the rule of law and a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring access to justice. A critical component of this transparency is the ability of litigants to access all documents that form part of the judicial record. A recurring and contentious issue within Indian jurisprudence has been the right of a party to obtain certified copies of documents that have been filed in court but not formally marked as exhibits. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework and judicial pronouncements governing this right. It explores the statutory foundations within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the procedural codes, examines the divergent approaches adopted in civil and criminal proceedings, and culminates in an analysis of the Supreme Court's definitive stance, which elevates the right to access such documents to a constitutional imperative under the doctrine of a fair trial.

Statutory Framework: The Foundation in Evidence and Procedure

The entitlement to certified copies of documents held by a court is primarily rooted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which delineates the very character of such documents. This statutory right is operationalized through the procedural rules governing civil and criminal courts.

Public Documents and the Right to a Copy under the Evidence Act, 1872

The analysis must commence with the definition of "public documents" under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Section 74(1)(iii) categorizes "documents forming the acts, or records of the acts... of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive" as public documents. Once a document is filed in a court of law, it becomes a part of the judicial record and, by extension, falls within this definition. The Gujarat High Court in THAKKAR VASUDEV KANAIYALAL v. AMENDMENT AS PER ORDER DATED 03 08 2022 (2023) reinforced this position by directing the issuance of certified copies of all papers, "exhibited as well as not exhibited," explicitly referencing Section 74.

This classification is pivotal because Section 76 of the Act creates a corresponding right. It mandates that every public officer having custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, "shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor." The copy so provided, certified as true, is termed a "certified copy." The right to a copy is therefore intrinsically linked to the document's status as a public record, a status it acquires upon being filed in court, irrespective of whether it is subsequently marked as an exhibit for evidentiary purposes.

Procedural Rules: The Civil and Criminal Divide

While the Evidence Act provides the substantive right, procedural rules dictate its application. Historically, a divergence has been observed between the practices in civil and criminal courts.

  • Civil Proceedings: The Civil Rules of Practice have generally been interpreted liberally to uphold the right to obtain copies. The Madras High Court, in a series of judgments including M.Ramasamy v. F.Ramesh (2007) and Rev. Samuel D. Stephens v. Pastor A. Samuel Ramasamy (2009), has consistently held that parties are entitled to certified copies of documents, even if unmarked. These decisions rely on the principle that once a document is part of the court record, its accessibility cannot be denied. In Murugesan v. Gnanasekaran (2015), the court explicitly stated, "Any part of the record even marked or unmarked, certified copies of them can be obtained. That is the procedure under Civil Rules of Practice."
  • Criminal Proceedings: The position in criminal law has been more complex. While Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) mandates the supply of police reports and other documents to the accused, the question of unmarked documents submitted to the court but not relied upon by the prosecution has been contentious. In T. Gunasekarapandian v. M. Anitha (2020), the Madras High Court held that since the procedure under the Domestic Violence Act is governed by the CrPC, "certified copies of unmarked documents cannot be issued." This created a stark contrast with the position in civil law, suggesting a more restrictive regime in criminal matters, possibly due to concerns about the integrity of the trial process.

Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court's Unifying Doctrine

The apparent conflict between the approaches in civil and criminal law, and the restrictive interpretation in some criminal cases, was authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court. The Court's jurisprudence has shifted the discourse from a narrow procedural entitlement to a fundamental constitutional right.

The Landmark Ruling in V.K. Sasikala v. State

The seminal judgment on this issue is V.K. Sasikala v. State (2012 SCC 9 771). In this case, the accused sought certified copies or inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents that had been forwarded to the court by the investigating agency along with the charge sheet. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, held that the issue "travels beyond the confines of the strict language of the provisions of Cr.P.C and touches upon the larger doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up by the courts on a purposive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution."

The Court reasoned that the prosecution cannot be permitted to withhold documents that may be vital for the defence. It observed that if an accused contends that papers not exhibited by the prosecution may favour the defence, "the court must concede a right in the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so claimed." The right to access these unmarked documents was deemed essential for the accused to effectively answer questions during their examination under Section 313 CrPC and to prepare a robust defence. This principle was unequivocally reiterated by the Kerala High Court in P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State Of Kerala (2018), which relied heavily on the *Sasikala* precedent to affirm the accused's right to access such materials.

Reconciling the Dichotomy

The judgment in *V.K. Sasikala* provides a unifying constitutional principle that resolves the dichotomy. The distinction between a "marked" and "unmarked" document is one of procedural relevance concerning its admissibility and proof during trial. As noted in Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited (2015), the question of mode of proof is procedural and can be waived, but the right to access the document itself is a more fundamental issue. The act of marking a document (exhibiting it) is a step in the trial process; it does not alter the intrinsic character of the document as part of the public judicial record under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.

Therefore, the restrictive view taken in cases like T. Gunasekarapandian appears to be inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, as interpreted in *Sasikala*, mandates disclosure and access, overriding narrower procedural interpretations that might seek to deny copies of unmarked documents. The right to a copy is a prerequisite for a litigant to determine the relevance and potential use of a document, a decision they cannot make if access is denied at the threshold.

Conclusion

The state of Indian law, as crystallized by the Supreme Court, firmly establishes the right of a litigant or an accused to obtain certified copies of all documents forming part of the judicial record, regardless of whether they have been marked as exhibits. This right is anchored in the statutory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which define such documents as public records, and is elevated to a constitutional right under Article 21 as an indispensable facet of a fair trial.

While some High Courts have demonstrated a degree of variance, particularly in drawing a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, the authoritative pronouncement in V.K. Sasikala v. State has provided a clear and binding principle. The procedural status of a document as "marked" or "unmarked" pertains to its evidentiary use and does not extinguish the fundamental right of a party to access it. It is imperative that judicial administration and court registries align their practices with this established legal doctrine, ensuring that the principles of transparency and access to justice are upheld in both letter and spirit.