The court affirmed that claims to privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act must yield to the demands of transparency and public interest, allowing for scrutiny of documents in criminal investigations.

1. Sccrecy in the day of transparency is the theme of the controversy that has brought the State, in the exercise of its police power to investigate a crime in conflict with the petitioners, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission), a Constitutional Body charged with the responsibility of holding examinations for recruitment to various public services under the State.

2. The Commission represented by its Secretary and the Secretary to the Commission are the two petitioners here who have brought the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking to quash a written order dated 31.05.2019, issued under S.91 CrPC by the Circle Officer, Pindara / Investigating Officer, Special Task Force, Varanasi in Case Crime no.172 of 2019, under S.406, S.409, S.420, S.120B IPC and S.7, S.8, S.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . By the said order, the Secretary to the Commission, has been directed to disclose certain information and produce certain documents, concerning the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid order is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order.

3. This Court proposes to examine the validity of the challenge laid to the impugned order on a brief reference to the background, in which it has come to be issued; unnecessary detail of all that has transpired in the matter of investigation in the crime so far, being eschewed. The Commission invited applications for recruitment to posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) vide Advertisement dated 15.03.2018 bearing no. A - 1 / E - 1/2018. The said post were to be filled up by the Commission through a Combined Written Examination scheduled to be convened by them on 29.07.2018. The total number of posts advertised was a figure of 10768. The Examination aforesaid being a combined examination was conducted to select Assistant Teachers, in varied subjects on the same day.

4. It is the Commission's case that they were in receipt of a large number of the applications, with candidates far greater in number than expected to sit the written examination, aforesaid. As the Commission themselves say, in order to manage such massive numbers, ensuring fairness in the process, and to prevent misconduct during the course of examination, the Commission requested the State Government to provide a team of police officials, specially tasked to manage a fair and forthright conduct of the said examination, keeping the law and order situation at different centres of the examination under the vigil and control. Accordingly, the Government provided a Special Task Force for the purpose, who manned their post on the date of examination.

5. The Commission have complained in the facts asserted in the Writ Petition that the Special Task Force of the police inter - meddled with the decisions of the Commission from the inception of the examination, instead of discharging duties assigned to them. What appears from the facts is that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force sent a Whatsapp message a day before the scheduled examination, to the Secretary of the Commission, petitioner no.2, informing the latter that the relative question paper has been leaked by some gang of men into the murky trade of solving leaked question papers, and that some 50 candidates, who were to sit the examination the following day, have been provided the leaked question paper. It is also asserted that a copy of the allegedly leaked question papers was sent to the Secretary. The Commission and the Special Task Force are at serious issue whether the question paper was, indeed, leaked by an organized gang into this murky business, with the Commission maintaining a stiff stand that the question paper propounded by the Special Task Force as a document allegedly leaked to 50 candidates, did not match the question paper, that was opened and distributed to the various examinees at the Examination Centres. The Commission say that this comparison was done between the specimen of the allegedl