STATE OF U.P. versus RAJ NARAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 24-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
RAJ NARAIN & ORS. 
January 24, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAG!RISWAMI; R. s. SARKARIA, 
B 
AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indian Evidence Act, ss. 123 and 162--Scope of. 
. 
Section 123 of the Evidence Act states that no one shaU be permitted to give 
any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affair of 
State except with the permission of the Officer at the Head of the Department con· 
cerned who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit., Section 162 
provides that when a witness brings to Cou1i a document in pursuance of summons 
and then raises an objection to its production or admissibility the Court has to · 
determine the validity of the objection to the production or admissibility and for 
. so doing the Court can inspect the document except in the case· of a document re· 
· . lating to the affairs of State or take such other eviJcncc as m~y be necessary to de· 
termine its admissibility. 
In connection with his election petition the respondent made an application be· 
fore the High Court for summoning the Secretary. General Administration and 
Chief Secretary of the State Government and the- lieadclerk of the office of the 
Superintendent of Police of the District for the production of the Blue Book en· 
titled "rules and instructions for the protection of the Prime Minister when on tour 
or in travel", and certain other correspondence exchanged between the Government 
of India and the State Government in that connection. The Home Secretary de· 
puted one of his officers to go to the court alongwith the documents but with clear 
instructions that he should claim privilege in re~pect of those documents under s. 
123 of Evidence Act. No affidavit of 1he Minister concerned or the Head of the 
Department was, however, filed at that time. In the course of examination the 
witness claimed privilege in respect of the documents. The election petitioner there-
upon contended that th~ Head of the Department had not filed an affidavit claim· 
ing privilege and that the documents did not relate to the affairs of the State. The 
documents in respect of which privilege was claimed were sealed and kept in the 
custody of the Court. When the matter came up for hearing, however. the Home 
Secretary to the State Government, filed an affidavit claiming privikge for the 
documents. Jn respect of the document' summoned from the office of the 
Superintendent of Police an affidavit claiming privileA<' under s. 123 t'f the 
Evidence Act was tiled by the Superintendent of Police. 
The High Court held that (i) under s. 12'.l of the. Evidence Act the Minister 01· 
the Head of the Department concerned must file an affidavit in the first instance 
and since no such nttidavit had been filed in the first inst:ncc the pri1·ilc~c was 
lost and the affidavit filed later claiming privilege was of no avail. (ii) that it 
would decide the 
que~tion or privilege only when permission to prc>ducc a 
document h~d been withheld under~. 121: I iii) thal. the Blue Book in respect of 
which privilege was claimed was not ;rn unpublished official recorct re!at'ng to 
the affslrs of the. State becnuse the Union Gmcrnmcnt had ieferred to a rortion 
of it in one .of its affidavits and a member of Parliament had rcferre.d tc :t 
puticular rule of the Blue Book in Par!i:iment: (iv) th:it no rea~ons were given 
why the disclosue of the document~ would be against public interest; and (vl 
that 1t had power to inspect the documents in respect. of which privilege was 
claimed. 
· 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, (per A. N. Ray. CJ .. A. Alagiriswami, R. 
S. Sarkaria and N. L. Untwalia, JJ) : 
· 
HELD : The foundation of the law behind ss. 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act 
i\ the same as in English Law. It is that injury to public interest is the reason for 
the exclusion from disclosure of document' whose contents. if disclosed, would in-
jure public and national interest. Public interest which demands that evidence be 
7--423SCil75 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] 3 s.c.R. 
withheld is to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice 
that .courts should have the fullest possible access to all relevant materials. When 
pubhc mterest outweighs the latter, the evidence cannot be admitted. The Court 
~ill proprio motu e~cl1;1de. evidence, the product.ion of which is contrary to public 
mterest. It 1s m public interest that confidentiality shal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.