SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 31

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, R.S. SARKARIA AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
The State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Raj Narain and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1596 of 1971,
D/- 24-1-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Niren De, Attorney General of India and Mr. B. D. Agarwala, Chief Standing Counsel for U. P. (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with them) for Appellant; Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate, with him), (for No. 1). M/s. Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Baggar, Advocates. (for No. 2) for Respondents.

Headnote:

Evidence Act - Section 123 –Rule 71 (6) - Election - This is an appeal by special leave from judgment learned Single Judge of High Court at Allahabad holding that no privilege can be claimed by Government of under Section 123 of Evidence Act in respect of what is described for sake of brevity to be Blue Book summoned from Government and certain documents summoned from Superintendent of Police - Summoning certain witnesses along with documents mentioned in application - Summons was inter alia for following witnesses along with following documents – Held, Court would set aside order of High Court and direct it to consider matter afresh - High Court will have to consider question whether documents in respect of which privilege had been claimed by Home Secretary and Superintendent of Police relate to affairs of state and whether public interest would be injuriously affected by their disclosure - If averments in affidavits are not full or complete court will be at liberty to call for further affidavits - If on basis of averments in affidavits court is satisfied that Blue Book belongs to a class of document line minutes of proceedings of cabinet which is per se entitled to protection no further question will arise in respect of that document - In such case no question of inspection of that document by court will also arise - If however court is not satisfied that Blue Book does not belong to that class and that averments in affidavits and evidence adduced are not sufficient to enable Court to make up its mind that its disclosure will injure public interest it will be open to court to inspect document for deciding question whether it relates to affairs of state and that its disclosure will injure public interest - Appeal allowed

Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20 March, 1974 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Allahabad, holding that no privilege can be claimed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of what is described for the sake of brevity to be the Blue Book summoned from the Government of Uttar Pradesh and certain documents summoned from the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Shri Raj Narain, the petitioner in Election Petition No. 5, of 1971 in the High Court of Allahabad, made an application on 27 July, 1973 .for summoning certain witnesses along with documents mentioned in the application. The summons was inter alia for the following witnesses along with following documents:

3. First, the Secretary, General Administration. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow or any officer au.- thorised by him was summoned to produce inter alia (a) circulars received from the Home Ministry and the Defence Ministry of the Union Government regarding the security and tour arrangements of Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi, the respondent in Election Petition for the tour programmes of Rae Bareli District on 1, 24 and 25 February, 1971 or any general order for security arrangement; and (l) All correspondence between the State Government and the Government of India and between the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister regarding Police arrangement for meetings of the Prime Minister by State Government and in regard to their expenses.

4. Second, the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow was also summoned along with inter alia the documents namely, (a) circulars received from the Home Ministry and Defence Ministry of the Union Government regarding the security and tour arrangements of Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi for the tour programmes of Rae Bareli District for 1, 24 and 25 February 1971; (j) All correspondence between the State Government and the Government of India and between the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister, regarding the arrangement of Police for the arrangement of meetings for the Prime Minister by State Government and in regard to their expenses.

5. Third, the Head Clerk of the office of the Superintendent of Police of District Rae Bareli was summoned along with inter alia the following (a) all documents relating to the tour programme of Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi of District Rae Bareli for 1 and 25 February, 1971; (b) all the documents relating to arrangement of Police and other security measures adopted by the Police and all documents relating to expenses incurred on the Police personnel, arrangements of the Police, arrangement for constructions of Rostrum, fixation of loud-speakers and other arrangements through Superintendent of Police, District Rae Bareli.

6. On 3 September 1973 the summons was issued to the Secretary, General Administration. The summons was endorsed to the Confidential Department by the General Department on 3 September 1973 as will appear from paragraph 5 of the affidavit of R. K. Kaul, Commissioner and Secretary in-charge. On 5 September, 1973 there was an application by the Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for clarification to the effect that the Chief Secretary is not personally required to appear pursuant to the summons. The learned Judge made an order on that day that the Chief Secretary need not personally attend and that the papers might be sent through some officer. On 6 September, 1973 S. S. Saxena, Under Secretary, Confidential Department, was deputed by R. K. Kaul, Home Secretary as well as Secretary, Confidential Department, to go to the High Court with the documents summoned and to claim privilege. This will appear from the application of S. S. Saxena dated l9 September, 1973.

7. In paragraph 4 of the said application it is stated that in compliance with the summons issued by the High Court the Home Secretary deputed the applicant Saxena to












































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top