The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535.htm

Privacy in libraries: the Privacy

in libraries
perspective from India
Sneha Tripathi
Central Library, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi, India, and
Aditya Tripathi 615
Department of Library and Information Science, Received 17 February 2010
Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi, India Reviewed 8 March 2010
Revised 30 April 2010
Abstract Accepted 24 May 2010
Purpose – Ethics is an inherent concept for any profession. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the
ethical perspective of librarianship. The focus of the discussion is to identify whether it is ethics or law
which should supercede in changing the legal and social environment, with special reference to India.
Design/methodology/approach – The state of a right to privacy in India is elaborated. The
discussion is focused around library ethics and user privacy, which is a much less talked about matter
in Indian librarianship than in the developed world.
Findings – Professional ethics should be given equal consideration while framing law and policies for
non-profit organizations like libraries. The issue of privacy has been given very little credence in terms
of library rules and regulations in India. There is a need to create awareness among the masses on the
issue of privacy and it should be considered as an important component while formulating guidelines
for library policies.
Practical implications – The role of library associations is considered to be vital in creating
awareness among the libraries and information centers. Library associations in India are urged to make
similar efforts like American Library Association. Impact of information technology on privacy is
explored as one of the emerging research areas.
Originality/value – This paper is the first of its kind to study how the libraries in India are dealing
with the issue of privacy and highlight the need for the information professionals to protect their
professional ethics.
Keywords India, Libraries, Ethics, Privacy, Library management
Paper type Viewpoint

1. Introduction
The nature and behavior of users has been a matter of inquisitiveness for library and
information professionals for a long time. Concealing the title of borrowed books or
covering up computer monitor from other fellow users and the library staff are some of
the very common instances of peculiar user activities. The possibility of having a
concern with their ‘‘privacy’’ by a user cannot be ignored.
The term ‘‘privacy’’ is spanned to an Individuals right to decide the circumstances and
the extent to which one wishes to share information about themselves with others. Shils
(1966) defines it as a ‘‘ ‘zero relationship’ between two or more persons in the sense that
there is no interaction or communication between them if they so choose.’’ The concepts
are equally applicable for an individual in the private domain as well as a constitutional
right against the state. In other words, to what extent a person or a government authority
has the right to know and have a control on other individuals/private citizens. The focus
of the following discussion is how much a library professional is responsible for
maintaining the confidentiality of the users and is it ethics or law that should supercede?
Library Review
Vol. 59 No. 8, 2010
2. About privacy pp. 615-623
Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly resolution 217 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0024-2535
A (III) 1948), created a benchmark for a modern privacy act which has subsequently DOI 10.1108/00242531011073146
LR been followed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the
59,8 UN Convention on Migrant Workers and the UN Convention on Protection of the Child.
Article 12 states that:
No-one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks on his honor or reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interferences or attacks.
616 Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) states that:
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this
right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for
the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection
of the rights and freedoms of others.
Defining the elements of privacy, Sturges (2002) has outlined solitude, anonymity,
bodily modesty, psychological integrity and confidentiality (in terms of shared
information) as important components of privacy.
There is a Canadian Standards Association’s model code which comprehensively
elaborates the guidelines to be followed while formulating the privacy policy for any
organization. The code has been detailed in the later part of this paper. The elements
and the guidelines are very much significant and helpful in increasing the use of
resources in organizations like libraries.
In a report by Laurant (2003) on privacy and human rights, Privacy International
stated that ‘‘Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps
the most difficult to define and circumscribe.’’ But they also emphasize that though the
issue lacks a single definition it does not imply that the issue becomes unimportant.
They further state ‘‘in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy.’’
Most countries in world recognize the right to privacy explicitly (example: South Africa
and Hungary) or implicitly (USA, India and Ireland). But no country has a ‘‘right to
privacy’’ as specific constitutional right for their citizens. In countries like USA and India,
court laws have slowly set the way for right to privacy. Many countries do not explicitly
recognize the right but have adopted different international agreements on human rights
in their policies to pave a way for a right to privacy.
As per Privacilla.org (2006), a unique web-based project that seeks to capture
‘‘privacy’’ as a public policy issue, ‘‘privacy is a personal and subjective condition. One
person cannot decide for another what his or her sense of privacy should be.’’ They
further state that lacking privacy at one point would be helpful for an individual to be
more socially responsible, but that does not mean one should lose control over the
information they want to keep private. Thus, generalizing privacy is not easy.
In one of its jurisdictions, the Supreme Court of India (People’s Union for Civil
Liberties vs Union of India (1997), 1 SCC 301) has also recognized the complexity to
outline a said rule for Right to Privacy (Agrawal, 2004). They state ‘‘The Right to Privacy
by itself has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too wide
and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether a right to privacy can be claimed or has
been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case.’’ The statement
is also authenticated by McMenemy et al. (2007) in their study on worldwide ethical
practices and concludes that ethical practices are subjective and situational. What stands
correct in one situation may not be correct in a different environment.
 Thus, privacy can be defined as an individual’s freedom to decide to what extent Privacy
he/she likes to share their intellectual, social and cultural life with others, or in other
words to what extent others can invade into his/her private life.
in libraries

3. Privacy in India
In India, right to privacy has been an implicit fundamental right. However, several
court decisions have set the way to explicitly recognize it as an inherent property of
Article 21 of the Constitution which states that ‘‘No person shall be deprived of his life
617
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by the law.’’
India is a signatory member of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (2008) the Article 17 (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI), 1966) of which
recognizes the right as:
1. No one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to lawful attacks on his honor and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
India has also given its consent to the ‘‘International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (1966)’’ on March 27, 1979.
Unfortunately, the right to privacy is not one of the ‘‘reasonable restrictions’’ to the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) (Madhavi, 2002).
Article 19 reads as follows:
(1) All citizens shall have the right –
(a) to freedom of speech and expression.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law or
prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
Thus, it is difficult to underline the extent to which India adheres to the two International
covenants.
In India privacy law has evolved largely as verdict on part of their judiciary system.
In a case of surveillance (Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332), the
Supreme Court of India had first time recognized privacy as an implicit component of
Article 21 of the Constitution. But the majority was unreceptive to the idea of recognizing
a right to privacy and dismissed the claim on the ground that there could be no
fundamental right to protect ‘‘mere personal sensitiveness.’’ Their view was based on the
conclusion that the infringement of a fundamental right must be both direct as well as
tangible and that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) was not infringed by a
watch being kept over the movements of a suspect. Thus, right to privacy was confined
only to restrict domiciliary visits. But in case of Gobind vs State of Madhya Pradesh, also
a case of surveillance, the Supreme Court, authorized the domiciliary visits as one of the
measures of surveillance if it has got the basis of compelling and wider public interest. In
another judgment (Khushwant Singh vs Maneka Gandhi), a two-judge bench stated that
the use of right to privacy is restricted only against the state action and not against
private entities (Madhavi, 2002). The Supreme Court of India, in one of its cases related to
medical ethics (Vora, 2007), had stated:
LR It is the basic principle of Jurisprudence that every Right has a co-relative Duty and every
Duty has a co-relative Right. But the rule is not absolute. It is subject to certain exceptions in
59,8 the sense that a person may have a Right but there may not be a co-relative duty. The instant
case, as we shall presently see, falls within the exceptions. The Court further stated that
circumstances in which the public interest would override the duty of confidentiality could,
for example, be the investigation and prosecution of serious crime or where there is an
immediate or future (but not a past and remote) health risk to others.
618 The court decisions have reflected changing facets in their decisions on the right to
privacy. Moreover, in a survey conducted on awareness of privacy reflected that in
India, people have more tendency to trust government and business and they are quite
liberal in sharing their information in public (Kumaraguru and Cranor, 2005). Also,
76 percent (approx.) of the surveyed people had shown low to high concerns on
personal privacy whereas 80 percent (approx.) showed low to high concerns about
privacy on the Internet. It also suggests that advances in information technology have
made the general population more aware of privacy issues. Though, the proportion of
people having concerns towards privacy is not as high as compared to the countries of
western world, it is good enough to give a serious thought on this issue.

4. Indian librarianship and privacy

Privacy and freedom are two closely inter-knitted components for a service oriented
organization like libraries. The concept which prevails with these organizations is
freedom blended with confidentiality on part of their staff. Equitable access to
information and information privacy are two contradictory issues in the code of ethics
which the libraries are finding most difficult to deal with. A user demanding to know
the circulation details of a charged book is an example of this kind of contradiction. At
one hand it is right of a library user to know the whereabouts of a library book and on
the other hand it is professional ethics to secure the privacy of library users. In India,
most of the libraries do not have a privacy policy defined to deal with such cases.
Requests for information about how people use the library come from many
different sources, including local and state police, the FBI, journalists, students,
parents, fund-raisers, marketing professionals, civil litigants and politicians. Most
librarians would also add teachers and professors investigating cases of suspected
plagiarism, library patrons wanting to know who has the books they need or who has
enjoyed a particular book and scholars inquiring about others conducting research on
similar topics. In India which still lacks a national policy for their libraries, an
increased percentage of awareness among users regarding their rights will worsen the
situation of library services in the near future. The library associations in India have
taken efforts to pursue the government to establish one for their public library system,
but to date nothing could be done. As a result, most of the libraries in India do not have
a concrete and standard user policy framework unlike university libraries in the USA
and UK which have clearly stated policy guidelines in this regard.
Open access has been one of the inherent concepts of Indian librarianship.
Dr S.R. Ranganathan, Father of Indian Library Science, was first to introduce open
access in the Indian public library system (Kumar, 1992). The idea was to support the
concept of more freedom for library users and indirectly had an emphasis on creating
a space for users who wished more privacy. But this thought never had any explicit
representation in any of his theories including his policy framework in Indian Library
Manifesto (ILM) for Public Libraries. The focus was always on services to library
users. The issue of ethical responsibility towards users never had a strong Privacy
representation even in the recent past history of Indian librarianship. in libraries
Now the question arises that in the absence of clear policy guideline for libraries on
privacy, whether library professionals are in a position to ensure their library users
regarding the privacy of their information? How can a library deal with the issues
related to user privacy and the right to information at one go when the struggle is still
on to implement a national policy for libraries? These issues are not unique to India
and will have relevance to many of the developing nations of the world.
619

5. Framing library policies based on library ethics

Implementation of the Patriot Act after the 9/11 terrorist attacks had created serious
concerns among librarians in USA. Librarians were asked to disclose their patron’s
records without prior permission from their users (Jeralyn, 2003). They were also not
allowed to let their users know about this. The USA has a long history of librarians and
library records targeted for obtaining information regarding a user. Zoia Horn, on her
capacity as librarian at Bucknell University, was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury
as witness in a conspiracy case, popularly known as Harrisburg Eight, in 1971. She
was sentenced to jail because of her denial to testify for the case (Cowan, 1976). After
implementation of the Ellen (2005), such cases are on rise against non-profit
organizations like libraries in USA. The American Library Association (ALA) has
come forward, strongly, to support the library professionals’ standpoint of protecting
the right of privacy of their users.
In India, several acts (TADA, 1987; POTA, 2002) were brought in to deal with
national threats. Some of these acts were developed on similar guidelines to the Patriot
Act. These acts were ceased after a lot of public uproar about their contents, but the
efforts are still on to bring one to the forefront that deals sufficiently with national
threats by interfering with privacy. If it happens, how will the library professionals will
deal with it? Does the Indian library community carry a strong voice like the ALA
which proclaims that:
We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information
sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired, or transmitted (Gardner, 2002).
Judith Fingeret Krug, Director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, defends
library patron’s privacy against any invasion. She asserts ‘‘it wasn’t the right to
privacy that let terrorists into our nation. It had nothing to do with libraries or library
records’’ (Associated Press, 2002).
Any particular piece of information can be useful in a variety of ways to different
people at different times (McMenemy et al., 2007, p. 4). A medical professional
consulting a book on causes of death does not intend to harm his patients, or a library
user reading a book on terrorism or spying does not necessarily indicate that the
person has the inclination to carry out such activities.
A user trusts the library personnel and perceives the library as a place where they
can freely perform a search, locate information, asks questions, and check out books,
with the expectation and confidence that these matters will be kept confidential and
private. But what happens if he feels he is being watched for the books he is using?
What impact it will have on other library users? This may lead to reluctance from the
user end to approach for a help or consult a book on controversial issues.
The code of ethics for librarians is not enforced in the same way as for other professions
such as law and medicine. The codes of ethics set forth best practices and offer guidance
LR for navigating conflicts between the interests of various groups in society. There is a need
59,8 to reformulate library policies with an emphasis on protecting professional ethics.
Since the rights to freedom and right to privacy both falls under the same umbrella of
ethics, prioritizing one upon the other has always been a matter of concern for policy and
decision makers. An emphasis has been put on having privacy policies for each library as
a means to make sure decisions and actions align with the library’s principles and mission.
The ALA (American Library Association, 2005) proposes five ‘‘fair information
620 practice principles’’ which would serve as a guideline to develop a library privacy
policy. These are as follows:
(1) Notice and openness: to the user about the library policies on privacy and
confidentiality of their personally identifiable information.
(2) Choice and consent: of the user on the usage of their personal information.
(3) Access by users: on their personally identifiable information.
(4) Data integrity and security: of personally identifiable information.
(5) Enforcement and redress: the libraries should adopt steps to establish and
maintain an effective mechanism to enforce their privacy policies. Redress to
the users should be made available if the users feel that their right to privacy
has been violated by the library.
ALA further recommends that library policies on confidentiality stipulate that
personally identifiable information will be released only upon receipt of a court order,
subpoena or other binding legal demand and only after such demand has been
reviewed by legal counsel.
The Canadian Standards Association (2003) has asserted ten universal privacy
principles. These principles are:
(1) Accountability: an organization should be liable for any use/misuse of personal
information of their users/customers.
(2) Identifying purpose: accomplishing the reasons for collection of personal
information.
(3) Consent: approval should be obtained from users before making use of their
personal information.
(4) Limiting collection: the personal information collected should be limited to the
purposes identified by the organizations.
(5) Limiting use, disclosure, retention of the personal information to the extent of
fulfillment of the purposes identified by the organizations.
(6) Accurate, complete and update: the collected personal information to the extent
of fulfillment of purposes identified by the organization.
(7) Safeguard: personal information based on its sensitiveness.
(8) Openness: on part of organization about their policies and practices to their users.
(9) Individual access: upon request, each individual should be provided full access
to their personal information including the details of their use and disclosure.
The user has the right to challenge if any disparity is found.
(10) Challenging compliance: an individual can address any issue falling in line with
above stated principles.
The principles are quite comprehensive in nature and form the ground rules for the Privacy
collection, use and disclosure of personal information in both the public and private sector. in libraries
These principles, however, seems to be influenced by following variables:
. Change in policies and practices of the organization.
. Longevity of holding the personal information.
. Circumstances and applicability of personal information: interpretation of 621
information in a particular circumstance.
. Change in priority set forth by users for themselves.
. Age and status of the user.
. Different forms of media for information communication.
A good policy checklist proposed by Sturges (2002) emphasizes the following:
. Is the policy ethical, legal and practical?
. Is the policy responsive to public concern?
. Is the policy in the best interests of stakeholders?
Enright (2001) proposes a detailed audit checklist for the privacy policy of an
organization. He emphasizes establishing and assessing the contextual relationship of
statutory/regulations and other constraints (such as media) with the privacy policies.
The tentative risks arising out of the situation should be carefully analyzed. This will
help the policy makers to determine the level of privacy related exposure so that it will
have proper representation in organizational privacy strategy.
Librarianship is more about human relationships, the inter-personal and
intra-personal communication than the handling of the entities it has. A mutual
relationship of faithfulness exists on the part of library users and library staff.
Confucius once said: ‘‘To all you serve, be loyal.’’ What else could be a better guideline
to formulate a policy for a service oriented organization like a library?

6. Conclusion
Librarians have demonstrated a long-standing commitment to patron confidentiality.
With advances in the electronic environment, confidentiality is now a matter of concern
for the wider field of information management. When the users are targeted under the
disguise of government policies, it contradicts the very idea of living in a democracy.
People cannot be characterized on the basis of what they choose to read. It seems too
irrational to put a person’s reputation on stake just because he/she likes to read. If the
users will fear to read, their thoughts would remain prejudiced. It would be difficult for
them to see or judge the other side of the coin.
Library professionals are carrying out their ethical responsibility towards library users
by keeping their information private. There is a need to develop this understanding that
the non-profit organizations like libraries have social causes to support their activities.
Also, library policies should reflect that libraries may be in support to government policies
but not at the cost of trust of their users. Trust is something which is very difficult to
define and it is inherent for the existence of any profession. Where and on what basis
library professionals will be making a stand among other professionals?
India has a long history of tolerance and humanity. Also, the general awareness
among people regarding their right to privacy and confidentiality is very low in
LR comparison to countries like UK and USA. Discussions and debates about privacy are
59,8 not new but due to the cultural environment it was not talked about in India to any
great extent. The social and technological changes in the country as well as interaction
with different parts of the world have brought awareness regarding privacy in India. It
has affected Indian society to a great extent and hence the profession of librarianship.
Indian librarianship still lacks leadership and a strong representation from their
622 professional organizations. The library community in India needs to strengthen its
professional movement by streamlining their objectives and activities so that library
professionals can also have a say in government policies.
Nothing could be a better concluding remark for the discussion than to extend the
Five laws of library science and introduce ‘‘Protect the concerns of library user’’ as one
of the guiding principle for library professionals.

References
Agrawal, R. (2004), ‘‘Privacy and emerging technology: are Indian laws catching up?’’, available
at: www.nwmindia.org/Law/Commentary/privacy.htm (accessed 8 February 2008).
American Library Association (2005), ‘‘Privacy tool kit’’, available at: www.ala.org/ala/oif/
iftoolkits/toolkitsprivacy/guidelinesfordevelopingalibraryprivacypolicy/guidelinespri
vacypolicy.cfm#privacylaw (accessed 2 April 2008).
Associated Press (2002), ‘‘FBI monitoring library records in terror probe’’, available at:
www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID¼16468 (accessed 3 April 2008).
Canadian Standards Association (2003), ‘‘Canadian Standards Association’s model code for the
protection of personal information’’, available at: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pgol-pged/piatp-pfefvp/
course1/mod1/mod1-5 e.asp (accessed 8 April 2008).
Cowan, P. (1976), ‘‘Bearing witness: some thoughts on Zoia Horn’’, in Schuman, P.G. (Ed.), Social
Responsibilities and Libraries: A Library Journal/School Library Journal Selection (7-11),
R R Bowker, New York, NY.
Ellen, D.G. (2005), ‘‘Confidentially speaking: American libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act’’,
Library Philosophy and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, available at: www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~
mbolin/gilbert3.pdf
Enright, K.P. (2001), ‘‘Privacy audit checklist’’, available at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/clinical/
privacyaudit.html (accessed 5 April 2008).
(The) European Convention on Human Rights (1950), Council of Europe, available at:
www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html (accessed 8 March 2008).
Gardner, C. (2002), ‘‘Fact act or fiction: privacy in american libraries’’, available at:
www.cfp2002.org/proceedings/proceedings/gardner.pdf (accessed 3 April 2008).
Jeralyn, M.E. (2003), ‘‘Libraries report being asked for records’’, in TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime.
War on Terror, available at: www.talkleft.com/story/2003/09/20/999/55878 (accessed
28 March 2008).
Kumar, G. (1992), S. R. Ranganathan: An Intellectual Biography, Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi.
Kumaraguru, P. and Cranor, L. (2005), ‘‘Privacy in India: attitudes and awareness’’, Proceedings of
the 2005 Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET2005), Dubrovnik, 30 May-
1 June, available at: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/PET 2005.pdf (accessed 4 April 2008).
Laurant, C. (2003), ‘‘Privacy and human rights: an international survey of privacy laws and
developments’’, available at: www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/index.htm
(accessed 11 February 2008).
McMenemy, D., Poulter, A. and Burton, P.F. (2007), Handbook of Ethical Practice: A Practical Privacy
Guide to Dealing with Ethical Issues in Information and Library Work, Chandos
Publishing, Oxford. in libraries
Madhavi, D. (2002), ‘‘The right to privacy in the age of information and communications’’,
Supreme Court Cases 4 (12), available at: www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/
2002v4a3.htm#Note36 (accessed 14 March 2008).
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1948), (General Assembly Resolution 217 A
(III) 1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, available at: www.unhchr.ch/udhr/ 623
lang/eng.htm (accessed 24 February 2008).
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1966), (General Assembly Resolution 2200A
(XXI) of 16 December 1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2008),
available at: www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a ccpr.htm (accessed 4 April 2008).
POTA (2002), ‘‘The Prevention of Terrorism Act, enacted on March 28, 2002, replacing the Prevention
of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) 2001 to control terrorist activities in the country’’.
Privacilla.org (2006), available at:www.privacilla.org/ (accessed 3 April 2008).
Shils, E. (1966), ‘‘Privacy: its constitution and vicissitudes’’, Law and Contemporary Problems,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 281-306.
Sturges, P. (2002), ‘‘Remember the human: the first rule of netiquette, librarians and the internet’’,
Online Information Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 209-16.
TADA (The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) (1987), ‘‘The act was the first
legislative effort by the union government to define and counter terrorist activities’’.
Vora, V.K. (2007), ‘‘Fight between right to privacy and right to know: who should win?’’, available
at: www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pri r.htm (accessed 29 March 2008).

Further reading
Gorman, M. (2001), ‘‘Privacy in the digital environment – issues for libraries’’, Proceedings of the
67th IFLA Council and General Conference, 16-25 August, available at: www.ifla.org/IV/
ifla67/papers/145-083e.pdf (accessed 5 April 2008).
Magi, T.J. (2007), ‘‘The gap between theory and practice: a study of prevalence and strength of
patron confidentiality policies in public and academic libraries’’, Library and Information
Science Research, Vol. 29, pp. 455-70.
Ranganathan, S.R. (1989), Reference Service, 2nd ed., SRELS, New Delhi (Reprint, 129 pp.).
Ranganathan, S.R. (1990), Indian Library Manifesto, ABC Publishing House, New Delhi.
Ranganathan, S.R. (2006), The Five Laws of Library Science, Ess Ess Publications, New Delhi
(Reprint), p. 482.

Corresponding author
Sneha Tripathi can be contacted at: sneha.tripathi@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints