1972 Supreme(Del) 12
High Court Of Delhi
KANWAR LAL GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
AMAR NATH - Respondent
Election 2 of 1971
Decided On : 01/12/1972
D.D.Chawla, K.C.DUA, S.N.MARVAH, V.P.NANDA
Unpublished official records relating to an affair of State, such as public peace and security, are privileged under section 123 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 123 - UNPUBLISHED OFFICIAL RECORDS - PRIVILEGE - PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY - C. I. D. (SPECIAL BRANCH) REPORTS - HELD TO BE UNPUBLISHED OFFICIAL RECORDS RELATING TO AN AFFAIR OF STATE AND PRIVILEGED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had summoned Police Reporters of the C. I. D. who had been deputed to take notes of the speeches delivered during the public meetings of the Congress in support of the Congress candidate in the Delhi Sadar Parliamentary constituency between the period 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. The Inspector General of Police, Delhi, filed an affidavit claiming privilege under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, stating that the reports were unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State and their disclosure would cause injury to public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reports were unpublished official records relating to an affair of State, namely, public peace and security, and that their disclosure would cause injury to public interest. The court upheld the claim of privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether the reports of the C. I. D. (Special Branch) officers were unpublished official records relating to an affair of State and, therefore, privileged under section 123 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reports were unpublished official records relating to an affair of State, namely, public peace and security, and that their disclosure would cause injury to public interest. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sodhi Sukhdev Singh's case, which held that the area of documents which could be said to relate to affairs of State was enlarged to include documents relating to commercial activities undertaken by the State in the pursuit of public policies of social welfare.
Final Decision: The court upheld the claim of privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act and refused to order the production of the reports.
( 1 ) THE petitioner had summoned Police Reporters of the C. I. D. who had been deputed to take notes of the speeches delivered during the public meetings of the Congress in support of the Congress candidate in the Delhi Sadar Parliarnsntary constituency between the period 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. These witnesses were required to bring with them,-
"original reports taken by them and the copies if any of the said reports sent to the various authorities or the precie of the said speeches or the points noted i. e. the entire record including the the names and particulars of the speakers who were invited to attend, who spoke, the literature including land bills posters pamphlets etc. distributed or exhibited or REFERRED TO to in the speeches or otherwise including the estimate of the number of persons attending such public or other meetings and the slogans uttered from the stage and from the public during such meetings and such other records relevant for the purpose of proving this fact recorded by the witnesses including possible the names and addresses and particulars of other Police Officers who attended those meetings as a security measure or otherwise and also if possible the extent of loudspeakers and the electric arrangements, the shamianas, daries and other furniture used in the said meeting and other relevant factors to show how much would have been spent on a particular meeting".
( 2 ) IN pursuance, of the summons, Mahinderpal Singh (Public Witness. 20) an Inspector in the C. I. D. (Special Brachch) appeared on January 3, 1972. He deposed that the persons from the C. I. D. who were sent to cover meetings used to take the purport of the speeches either shorthand if shorthand writers were available or from memory and that these reports used to be submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. He was then asked to state from the record the public election meetings held in the Sadar Parliamentary constituency which were covered by the C. I. D. staff and on that he produced an affidavit of L. S. Bisht, Inspector General of Police, Delhi, staling that many officers had been deputed to cover the meetings held between 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. He further stated that he had examined the contents of the documents which were required to be produced and had come to the conclusion that they "are unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State and its disclosure will cause injury to public interest and it contains privileged communications made in official confidence and public interest will suffer by its disclosure. " He, therefore, withheld permission under section 123 of the Evidence Act to produce the said documents which "are unpubished official records" or to give evidence derived therefrom. This affidavit was merely signed by L. S. Bisht and was not even attested.
( 3 ) ON the production of this affidavit I was of the view, as stated by me in the order of that date that the affidavit merely repeated the language of section 123 of the Evidence Act without telling the Court as to how the unpublished official records relate to any affair of State. I also stated that according to the testimony of Public Witness. 20, the job of the officers detailed by him was to note down what was said in these public speeches by various speakers and I could not appreciate hew notes and speeches made at these public meetings relating to an election could be said to relate to any affair of State. I also REFERRED TO to the case reported in A. I. R. 1969 Madras 378 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner. However, I gave an opportunity to the Inspector General of Police to file a further affidavit disclosing how the unpublished official records relate to any affair of State.
( 4 ) THE envelope containing the unpublished official records was not opened but on my orders, my Reader signed the closed envelope. On 7-1-1972, a further affidavit of the said Inspector General of Police was filed. In this affidavi