Judgment :- 1. This is an application by Mr. M. Madhavan Nair, an Advocate of this Court, for a copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 560 of 1950. He was not appearing in the said appeal and the application, we are assured is being made in his individual capacity and not for and on behalf of anybody else. 2. The Office, we are told, was about to reject the application when Mr. Madhavan Nair represented the matter to the Chief Justice and got it posted for disposal by a Division Bench after notice to the Advocate General. 3. The attitude of the Office was apparently based on R.212 of the Civil Rules of Practice (Travancore-Cochin): "Application for copies of records a second time or by persons not parties to the suit or proceeding shall be allowed only by special order of the Court obtained on a duly verified petition setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required". Mr. Madhavan Nair submits that this rule even if valid has no application to the High Court and Mr. K.N. Narayanan Nair appearing on behalf of the Advocate General agrees with that submission. 4. The only point, therefore, that arises for consider is the correctness or otherwise of Mr. Madhavan Nair's submission that judgments being public records copies of such judgments should be available as a matter of right to all persons prepared to pay the fees prescribed for the supply of such copies. We are inclined to agree with him. Judicial decisions from an important part of our law and the authority of precedents is so potent and pervading in our courts that any restriction on the access to those decisions cannot but affect adversely the proper administration of justice. 5. AIR 1931 Allahabad 364 Laldi Prasad v. Emperor is an interesting case both on the ground of the personalities involved and the principles enunciated. In the opening paragraph of the judgment Mr. Justice Young summarised the circumstances that led up to the reference as follows: "In October last Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru was tried in the Court of the District Magistrate of Allahabad on a criminal charge and was convicted by him. An application was thereafter made by counsel on behalf of Pt. Moti Lal Nehru, the father of the convicted person, for a copy of the judgment delivered by the learned District Magistrate. Jawahar Lal Nehru was tried in the Court of the District Magistrate of Allahabad on a criminal charge and was convicted by him. An application was thereafter made by counsel on behalf of Pt. Moti Lal Nehru, the father of the convicted person, for a copy of the judgment delivered by the learned District Magistrate. By his order of 7th November 1930, the learned District Magistrate refused the application on the ground that the applicant was not a party to the case, or acting on behalf of a party to the case. An application was made in revision to the Sessions Court asking that a reference should be made to the High Court with regard to the legality of the said order. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and submitted the matter to the High Court for orders" and then stated the principles that induced him to accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate "As a matter of principle I am of opinion that the proceedings in, and specially the judgments of His Majesty's Courts ought to be accessible to the public, and unless by any statutory provision or by the rulings of any Court I am bound to the contrary, I would hold that it is the essence of the administration of justice that judgments affecting the rights, and more particularly the liberties, of the people should be made as public as possible, in order that the public at large might at leisure consider those judgments, either in their own interests or in the interests in a criminal cause, of the condemned person; for it is only by such publicity that the public can be satisfied that the law is being properly administered by those responsible for its administration, and that abuses in that administration, which might occur if the fullest publicity was not given to the proceedings in a Court, may be avoided A knowledge of the law, it is true, in many cases is made available to the public by statute, but the construction of statutes by the Courts, as expressed in their judgments is of even greater importance. It is a rule of law that every member of the public is presumed to know the law, it follows that the public have a right of access to the judgments of the Courts which express that law". 6. It is a rule of law that every member of the public is presumed to know the law, it follows that the public have a right of access to the judgments of the Courts which express that law". 6. We must hold that Mr. Madhavan Nair is entitled to a copy of the judgment in pursuance of the application he has made and that it should be given to him without delay. Order accordingly.