The transcript of a public speech made by a politician is not privileged under S. 123 and S. 162 of the Evidence Act if it does not relate to an affair of State and its disclosure would not cause any prejudice to public interest.

M. ANANTANARAYANAN, C.J. :- The proceeding before us is a simple one, in essence, and the facts are within a restricted scope. But it involves one question of some significance, on the principles which have to be applied when the State claims privilege under S. 123 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 162 of that Act, with regard to the production of a record, viz. in this case, the record by a police officer, under departmental instructions, of a public speech made by a citizen.

2. Very briefly stated, the affidavit of the petitioner (Ramasrinivasan) is to the effect that the respondent (P. Shanmugham, M. L. A.) addressed a public meeting on 5th May 1968 at Pondicherry, during the course of which meeting, inter alia, he referred to the actions of a certain Sri Farook Maricar, while that gentleman was Chief Minister of the State, in wreaking vengeance upon those who were responsible for his downfall. He is then supposed to have said, according to the affidavit of the petitioner, that "the case of Jeevarathina Udayar is one of such instances". It is not disputed that, at that time, there was a case against a certain Jeevarathina Udayar, with respect to a very grave offence, pending committal enquiry in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry. It is claimed that this constitutes grave contempt of court, as such a statement is calculated to affect the administration of justice.

3. In the counter affidavit of the respondent he denies that he made any such statement or reference, and, on the contrary, he claims that some one in the crowd asked him (the speaker) a question about Jeevarathina Udayar's case being another instance of the wreaking of vengeance, that he then explained that the matter was pending before a court of law and sub judice, and that it would not be proper to discuss it at a public meeting. As it was brought to our notice that, under the departmental instructions of the Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry, an officer had been deputed to attend this meeting, and to make a shorthand transcript of this speech, notice was issued to that authority, viz. the Inspector General to produce this transcript. The learned Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, appearing for the Inspector General of Police, has now produced the transcript, in a sealed cover, and pleaded privilege with regard to its production, under S. 123 and S. 162 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. The scope of these two sections, taken together, has been clarified by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhdev Singh, 1961-2 SCJ 691 : (AIR 1961 SC 493). That was also a case in which Section 123 and Section 162 of the Evidence Act had to be read together, and applied to the relevant facts. The Supreme Court observed that the court was not merely competent, but was also bound, to hold an enquiry to determine the validity of the objections to production, and that this necessarily involved the enquiry into the question whether

the evidence related to an affair of State under Section 123 or not. If the court came to the conclusion that the document related to an affair of State, the court should leave it to the Head of the department to decide whether he should permit its production or not. Their Lordships also made certain observations upon the difference between the law in this country and the law in the United Kingdom, in this respect.

5. We might immediately state, even apart from the nature of this particular document, which we have scrutinised for the initial purpose of testing the validity of the objection urged by the State, that it would be far too broad a claim to make, that officers deputed to transcribe in shorthand the speeches of persons at public meetings, under departmental instructions, should generally be permitted through the procedure prescribed under statute, to object to the production of the transcript as relating to affairs of State. Public meetings are held very frequently, in this country, an