THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus SODHI SUKHDEV SINGH

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 15-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
371 . 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SODHI SUKHDEV SINGH 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB, K. SUBBA RAO 
a.nd K. N. WANOHoo, JJ.) 
Evidence -
Production of documents~ "Affairs o/ State", 
meaning of-Privileged documents-Scope of-Ministerial certifi-
cate, if and 'when conclusive-Collateral evidence to find nature of 
document-Court's power-Inspection of documents-Code of Civsl 
Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O; II, rr. 14, 19(z), 0. 14, r. 14-Indian 
Evidence Act, 187z (1 of 1872), ss. 123, 162. 
The respondent who was a District and Sessions Judge in 
the erstwhile State of Pepsu was removed from service on April 
7, 1953 by an order passed by the President of India who was 
then in charge of the administration of the State. A representa-
tion made by the respondent on May 18, 1955, was considered 
by the Council of Ministers of the State as in the meantime the 
President's rule had come to an end, and its views wore expres-
sed in the form of a Resolution dated September 28, 1955; but 
before taking any action it invited the advice of the Public 
Service Commission. On receipt of the report of the Public 
Service Commission, the Council of Ministers considered the 
matter again on March 8, 1956, and its views were recorded in 
the minutes of the proceedings. 
On August II, 1956, the 
representation made by the respondent was considered over 
again by the Council and a final conclusion was reached in respect 
of it. 
In accordance with the said conclusion an order was 
passed which was communicated to the respondent to the effect 
that he might be re-employed on some suitable post. On May 5, 
1958, the respondent instituted a suit against the State of 
Punjab for a declaration that..,.the removal of his service on 
April 7, 1953, was illegal, and 1lled an application under 0. 14, 
r. 4, and 0. II, r. 14, of the Code of Civil Procedure for the 
production of certain documents, which included the proceedings 
of the Council of Ministers dated September 28, 1955. March 8, 
1956, and August II, 1956, and the report of the Public Service 
Commission. The State objected to the production of the said 
documents claiming privilege under s. 123 of the Indian Evi-
dence Act, 1872, and the Chief Secretary of .the State filed an 
affidavit giving reasons in support of the claim. The question 
was whether having regard to the true scope and effect of the 
provisions of ss. 123 and 162 of the Act the. claim of privilege 
raised by the State was sustainable. 
Held, that the documents dated September 28, 1955, March 
8, 1956, and August II, 1956, which embodied the minutes of 
November x5, 
I960 
Th• Stal• of 
Punjab 
v. 
Sodhi 
S1-1Ahdev Siugh 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
the meetings of the Council of Ministers indicating the advice 
which the Council ultimately gave to the Rajpramukh, were 
expressly saved by Art. 163(3) of the Constitution of India and 
fell within the category of documents relating to "affairs of 
State" within the meaning of s. 123 of the Indian Evidence 
Act, 1872. 
Accordingly, they were protected under s. 123, and as the 
head of the department, the Chief Secretary, did not give per-
mission for their production, the Court cannot compel the State 
to produce them. 
Held, further (Subba Rao, J., dissenting), that the report of 
the Public Service Commission being the advice tendered by it, 
was also protected under s. 123 of the Act. 
Held, also (Kapur, J., dissenting), that the words "records 
relating to affairs of State " in s. 123 cannot be given a wide 
meaning so as to take in every document pertaining to the 
entire business of State, but should be confined only to such 
documents whose disclosure may cause injury to the public 
interest. 
The second clause of s. 162 refers to the objections both as 
to the production and admissibility of the document and entitles 
the court to take other evidence in lieu of inspection of the 
document in dealing with a privilege claimed or an objection 
raised under s. 123, to determine the validity of the objections. 
Case law reviewed. 
Per Sinha, C. J., Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.-
Though under ss. 123 and 162 the Court cannot hold an enquiry 
into the possible injury to public interest which may result 
from the disclosure of the document in question, the matter 
being left for the authority concerned to decide, the Court is 
competent to hold a preliminary enquiry and determine the 
validity of the obje
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.