Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of February 24, 1995, 49 Minshu 2-517. Plaintiffs sought publication of financial information relating to Osaka municipal elections provided by political parties in response to a questionnaire prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Court reversed the Osaka High Court and reinstated the Osaka District Court decision denying plaintiffs access to such information as the information was related to the "functional operation of government clearly designated as not to be disclosed by the responsible governmental minister" under Article 9(3) of the Osaka Information Disclosure Act.

Supreme Court Second Bench Decision of November 19, 1999, 53 Minshu 8-1862, 1696 Hanji 101, 1018 Hanta 169. The Court vacated a lower court's dismissal and remanded for further consideration claims by residents of Zushi City for disclosure of information concerning administration of lands. In 1984 and 1985, requests by Zushi residents for local management of land within the Zushi Ikeko Ammunition Storage Facility were summarily denied by the national government. The residents appealed the denial to the district court (Yokohama District Court Decision of August 28, 1991) and later to the Tokyo High Court. In 1992, while the matter was under consideration by the Tokyo High Court, the group petitioned for disclosure of all documents associated with the two requests for local management pursuant to Article 8 of the Zushi Municipal Regulation Concerning Information Disclosure ("Regulation"). In response, municipal and national agencies which had considered the petitions, denied the request for disclosure of the information pursuant to Article 5(2)(d) of the Regulation, which allows for the nondisclosure of information relating to litigation strategy, where disclosure would interfere with agency functions. The agencies argued that, as the original action seeking to overturn the petitions was under consideration by the Tokyo High Court, the requested information concerned "litigation associated with municipal or national facilities" and that its disclosure "would result in a compromise of applicable administrative offices' future projects and materially interfere with the smooth functioning of municipal and national offices." The group's appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Tokyo High Court (Tokyo High Court Decision of March 10, 1994) and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision of September 9, 1997). The plaintiff then appealed the agencies' determination of nondisclosure. The district court found the agencies' refusal to disclose the requested information pursuant to Article 5(2)(d) as lacking adequate basis and that in light of the meaning and purpose of Article 9 of the Regulation, refusal of disclosure was not justified. (Yokohama District Court Decision of August 8, 1994). The Tokyo High Court agreed (Tokyo High Court Decision of July 17, 1996) and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court determined that while Article 5(2)(d) did not necessarily prevent disclosure of all information which may have an effect on a particular case, it would allow for nondisclosure of information relating to general strategy, disclosure of which would impact not only current but expected future litigation, as has been alleged by the defendants. However, the Court viewed the requested information as more appropriately falling within Article 5(2)(a) of the Regulation which allows for the nondisclosure of information if such would interfere with the purpose and determination of administrative agencies. As the information sought is the materials accumulated by the defendants for the purpose of responding to the plaintiffs' 1984 and 1985 requests, it constitutes information regarding the process of agency determinations and its disclosure would interfere with the accumulation of materials by agencies in the future. Moreover, because the determination of control involves communication of highly sensitive material between national and local authorities, disclosure of such information could interfere with the open communication between such entities.

Osaka High Court Decision of November 25, 1999, (Unpublished). The Court reversed a lower court ruling upholding in part the denial of the Nishinomiya Board of Education to allow the disclosure of information requested by the plaintiffs who were graduates of Nishinomiya Public Middle School (Osaka District Court Decision of March 4, 1998). In 1993, each of the plaintiffs had, pursuant to the Nishinomiya Municipal Personal Information Protection Act ("Act"), petitioned the Nishinomiya Board of Education for disclosure of "guidance summaries" prepared with respect to their academic performance in elementary and middle school and so-called "research reports," which are prepared for each middle school graduate and used in the selection of high schools which students are to attend. The Nishinomiya Board of Education initially denied the petitions, but, upon submission of a report submitted by the Nishinomiya Personal Information Research Committee advocating disclosure of all such documents, reversed its prior decision, permitting disclosure of a portion of the guidance summaries but prohibiting disclosure of the remainder of the requested evaluation materials, including the research reports. In response, the plaintiffs filed suit, asserting that the refusal to disclose requested information violated Article 12 of the Act. Reversing in part the determination of the Nishinomiya Board of Education, the lower court found no basis for denying disclosure of those portions of the requested materials which constituted objective, contemporaneous assessments, including the "evaluation" column of the "education record" contained in the guidance summaries and the "individual record" section of the research reports. However, the lower court found that nondisclosure of portions involving an evaluator’s subjective appraisal of a student, such as the "personal evaluation" column was justified, as allowing disclosure of these sections could affect a students’ self-perception, have the potential of diminishing a students’ desire to learn and raised the possibility of a loss of trust between students, parents, teachers and the school. In addition, the lower court suggested that instructors may be less willing to give a negative evaluation if such an evaluation could be readily disclosed to the student. Reversing the lower court and allowing the disclosure of all the information sought by the plaintiffs, the Court essentially found no basis for protecting students from potentially negative educational evaluations. Noting that, although Article 13 of the Constitution protects the right of privacy, there is no constitutional protection of a right to information, the Court relied on the Act for the purposes of determining the extent of the plaintiffs’ right to the requested information. While the Act does allow for the nondisclosure of information in the event such disclosure would result in "interference with public welfare or appropriate administrative action," or where the requested information "is recognized as appropriate not to be disclosed to the subject of the information," these provisions must be interpreted narrowly, or risk undermining the Act’s purpose of preventing the excessive or inaccurate collection of information by the government. In the current case, nondisclosure of the requested information could not be justified on either of these bases. Educational evaluations, especially negative evaluations, must be adequately substantiated factually and must be able to withstand the criticism of the subject or his or her guardian. Moreover, to serve their purpose of enhancing the educational experience, such evaluations as well as recommended guidance should be regularly conveyed to the student and his or her guardian. Indeed, it is where negative evaluations are contained only in research reports or guidance summaries, and not conveyed to the student that the destruction of the trust relationship between teacher and student may be caused. In addition, disclosure ensures the accuracy of such evaluations and operates to prevent inaccurate or inappropriate evaluations which can result in damage to the student.