9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and effect of Sections 123 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2. Validity of the claim of privilege by the State over certain documents. 3. Procedure for claiming privilege and the role of the Court in determining the validity of such claims. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope and Effect of Sections 123 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The appeal raised a significant question of law regarding the interpretation and application of Sections 123 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 123 prohibits the giving of evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned. Section 162 mandates that a witness summoned to produce a document must bring it to Court and allows the Court to decide the validity of any objection raised to its production or admissibility. The Court is empowered to inspect the document unless it refers to matters of State or take other evidence to determine its admissibility. 2. Validity of the Claim of Privilege by the State over Certain Documents: The respondent, a former District and Sessions Judge, filed a suit against the appellant (State of Punjab) claiming that his removal from service was illegal and sought arrears of salary. The respondent requested the production of certain documents, and the appellant claimed privilege under Section 123 of the Act. The Chief Secretary of the appellant made affidavits claiming privilege, which were upheld by the trial court. The High Court of Punjab reversed this decision for four documents, directing their production. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court erred in not upholding the claim of privilege. 3. Procedure for Claiming Privilege and the Role of the Court in Determining the Validity of Such Claims: The Court emphasized that the privilege under Section 123 should be claimed by the Minister in charge or the Secretary of the department, and the claim should be supported by an affidavit indicating that the document's disclosure would lead to public injury. The Court cannot inspect the document if it relates to matters of State but can take other evidence to determine the validity of the objection. The head of the department has the discretion to permit or withhold the document's production, considering whether its disclosure would injure public interest. Detailed Judgment: The Supreme Court analyzed the historical background of Sections 123 and 162, referencing English law and several key cases. The Court noted that the principle underlying Section 123 is the paramount interest of public welfare over private interests. The Court emphasized that the head of the department must exercise discretion in claiming privilege, ensuring that extraneous purposes do not influence the decision. The Court outlined the procedure for claiming privilege, requiring the Minister or Secretary to submit an affidavit showing careful consideration of the document and the reasons for claiming privilege. The Court held that the trial court was correct in upholding the claim of privilege for the documents in question, as they related to the affairs of State and their disclosure would injure public interest. The affidavits submitted by the Chief Secretary satisfied the requirements for claiming privilege. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision and directed that the documents should not be produced. Separate Judgment by Kapur, J.: Kapur, J., agreed with the conclusion but differed on the Court's ability to take other evidence regarding the nature of the document. He argued that the Court should not take other evidence to determine the document's nature if it cannot inspect it, as this would make the discretion of the head of the department illusory. He emphasized that the Court should trust the head of the department's discretion and not interfere with it. Separate Judgment by Subba Rao, J.: Subba Rao, J., agreed with the majority in part but differed regarding the report of the Service Commission. He argued that the report should not be privileged as its disclosure would not harm public interest and would serve the administration of justice. He emphasized the need for a balance between public interest and the administration of justice, suggesting that the Court should have the power to override the claim of privilege in exceptional cases. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order was restored, with costs awarded throughout.
|
