top of page
  • Writer's pictureLLC

section 123

In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh- Apex Court held that the normal procedure to be followed when an officer is summoned as witness to produce a document and when he takes a plea of privilege, is, for the Minister in charge or the head of the department concerned to Mean affidavit showing that he had read and considered the document in respect of which privilege is claimed and containing the general nature of the document and the particular danger to which the State would be, exposed by its disclosure. According to the Court, this was required as a guarantee. that the statement of the Minister or the head of the department which the Court is asked to accept is one that has not been expressed casually or lightly or as a matter of departmental routine, but is one put forward with the solemnity necessarily attaching to a sworn statement.

( In this case, a clear distinction was sought to be drawn between the doctrine of confidentiality and that of expediency, In other words, this Court decided that where a particular document did not relate to affairs of the State as such, but if the document was produced it may defeat the defence taken by the State, that alone would not be sufficient to uphold the plea of privilege.)

Section 123 of the Evidence Act states from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of state, except with the permission of the Officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as be thinks fit." Section 162 of the Evidence Act provides that when a witness brings to court a document in pursuance to summons and raises an objection to its production or admissibility, the Court has to- determine the validity of the objection to the production or admissibility and, for so doing, the court can inspect the document except in the case of a document relating to affairs of state or, take such other evidence as may be necessary to determine its admissibility.

Supreme Court of India

State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975

It might be that there are certain classes of documents which are per se noxious in the sense

that, without conducting an enquiry, it might be possible to say that by virtue of their character their disclosure would be injurious to public interest. But there are other documents which do not belong to the noxious class and yet their disclosure would be injurious to public interest. The enquiry to be conducted under s. 162 is an enquiry into the validity of the objection that the document is an unpublished official record relaing to affairs of state and therefore, permission to give evidence derived from it is declined. The objection would be that the document relates to secret affairs of state and its disclosure cannot be permitted; for, why should the officer at the head of the department raise an objection to the production of a document if he is prepared to permit its disclosure even though it relates to secret affairs of state ? Section 162 visualises an enquiry into that objection and empowers the court to take evidence for deciding whether the objection is valid. The court, therefore, has to consider two things; whether the document relates to secret affairs of state; and whether the refusal to permit evidence derived from it being given was in the public interest. No doubt, the, words used-in s. 123 "as he thinks fit" confer an absolute discretion on the head of the department to give or withhold such permission. As I said, it is only if the officer refuses to permit the disclosure of a document that any question can arise in a court and then s. 162 of the Evi- dence Act will govern the situation. An overriding power in express terms is conferred on the court under s. 162 to decide finally on the validity of the objection. The court will disallow the objection if it comes to the conclusion that the document does not relate to affairs of state or that the public interest does not compel its non-disclosure or that the public interest served by the administration of justice in a particular case overrides all other aspects of public interest. This conclusion flows from the fact that in the first part of s. 162 of the Evidence Act there is no limitation on the scope of the court's decision, though in the second part, the mode of enquiry is hedged in by- conditions. It is, therefore, clear that even though the head of the department has refused to grant permission, it is open to the court to go into the question after examining the document and find out whether the disclosure of the document would be injurious to public interest and the expression "as he thinks fit" in the latter part of section 123 need not deter the court from deciding the question afresh as s. 162 authorises the court to determine the validity of the objection finally . It is rather difficult to understand, after a court has inquired into the objection and found that disclosure of the document would be injurious to public interest, what purpose would be served by reserving to the head of the department the power to permit its disclosure because, the question to be decided by him would practically be the same, namely, whether the disclosure of the document would be injurious to public Interests question already decided by the court. In other words, if injury to public interest is the foundation of this so-called privilege, when once the court has enquired into the question and found that the disclosure of the document will injure public interest and therefore it is a document relating to affairs of state, it would be a futile exercise for the Minister or the head of the department to consider and decide whether its disclosure should be permitted as be would be making an enquiry into the identical question. It is difficult to imagine that a head of the department would take the responsibility to come to a conclusion different from that arrived at by a court as regards the effect of the dis- closure of the document on public interest unless he has or can have a different concept of public interest. Few would question the necessity of the rule to exclude that whichwould cause serious prejudice to the state. When a question of national security is involved, the court may not be the proper forum to weigh the matter and that is the reason why a Minister's certificate is taken as conclusive. "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what national security requires"(1). As the executive is solely responsible for national security including foreign relations, no other organ could judge so well of such matters. Therefore, documents in relation to these matters might fall into a class which per se might require protection. But the executive is not the organ solely responsible for public interest. It represents only an important element in it; but there are other elements, One such element is the administration of justice. The claim of the executive to have exclusive and conclusive power to determine what is in public interest is a claim based on the assumption that the executive alone knows what is best for the citizen. The claim of the executive to exclude evidence is more likely to operate to subserve a partial interest, viewed exclusively from a narrow departmental angle. It is impossible for it to see or give equal weight to another matter, namely, that justice should be done and seen to be done. When there are more aspects of public interest to be considered, the court will, with reference to the pending litigation, be in a better position to decide where the weight of public interest predominates. The power reserved to the court is a order production even though public interest is to some 'extent prejudicially affected. This amounts to a recognition that more than one aspects of public interest will have to be surveyed. The interests of government' for which the Minister speaks do not exhaust the whole public interest. Another aspect of that interest is seen in the need for impartial administration of justice. It seems reasonable to assume that a court is better qualified than the Minister to measure the importance of the public interest in the case before it. The court has to make an assessment of the relative claims of these different aspect of public interest. While there are overwhelming arguments for giving to the executive the power to determine what matters may prejudice public security, those arguments give no sanction to giving the executive an exclusive power to determine what matters may affect public interest. Once considerations of national security are left out, there are few matters of public interest which cannot safely be discussed in public. The administration itself knows of many classes of security documents ranging from those merely reserved for official use to those which can be seen only by a handful of Ministers of officials bound by oath of secrecy. If the disclosure of the contents of the document would not damage public interest, the executive cannot label it in such a manner as to bring 'it within the class of documents which ,are normally entitled to protection. No doubt, "the very description-of the documents in the class may suffice sometimes to show that they should not be produced such as Cabinet papers"

If the averments in the affidavits are not full or complete, the court will be at liberty to call for further affidavits. If, on the basis of the averments in the affidavits, the court is satisfied that the Blue Book belongs to a class of documents, like the minutes of the proceedings of the 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, the court is not satisfied that the Blue Book does not belong to that class and that averments in the affidavits and the evidence adduced are not sufficient to enable the Court to make up its mind that its disclosure will injure public interest, it will be open to the court to inspect the document for deciding the question whether it relates to affairs of state and that its disclosure will injure public interest. In respect of the other documents, the court will be at liberty to inspect them, if on the averments in the affidavits or other evidence, it is not able to come to a conclusion that they relate to affairs of state or not.

if, on inspection, the court holds that any part of the Blue Book or other document does not relate to affairs of state and that its disclosure would not injure public interest, the court will be free to disclose that part and uphold the objection as regards the rest provided that this will not give a misleading impression. Lord Pearce said in Conway v. Rimmer "if part of a document is innocuous but part is of such a nature that its disclosure would be undesirable, it should seal up the latter part and order discovery of the rest, provided that this will not give a distorted or misleading impression."

The principle of the rule of non-disclosure of records relating to affairs of state is the concern for public interest and the rule will be applied no further than the attainment of that objective requires.

Supreme Court of India


Section 123 : Evidence as to affairs of State -- No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.

It is also necessary for arriving at a proper interpretation of Section 123 to refer to Section 162 which says:

Section 162. Production of documents -- A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the court.

The court, if sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.

Translation of documents -- If for such a purpose it is necessary to causing document to be translated, the court may, if it thinks fit. direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence and if the interpreter disobeys such directions, he shall be held to have committed an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

These two sections came up for consideration for the first time before this Court in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (supra). Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), speaking on behalf of him-self, Sinha, C.J. and Wanchoo, J. pointed out that the principle behind the exclusionary rule enacted in Section 123 is that a document should not be allowed to be produced in court if such production would cause injury to public interest and where a conflict arises between public interest in non-disclosure and private interest in disclosure, the latter must yield to the former. The learned Judge emphasized that though Section 123 does not expressly refer to injury to public interest, that principle is obviously implicit in it and indeed it is the sole foundation and proceeded to add that even though administration of justice is a matter of very high public importance, if there is a real "conflict between public interest and the interest of an individual in a pending case, it may reluctantly have to be conceded that the interest of the individual cannot prevail over the public interest." Now we agree with the learned Judge that public interest lies at the foundation of the claim for protection against disclosure enacted in Section 123 and it seeks to prevent production of a document where such production would cause public injury but we do not think the learned Judge was right in observing that the interest which comes into conflict with the claim for non-disclosure is the private interest of the litigant in disclosure, It is rather the public interest in fair administration of justice that comes into dash with the public interest sought to be protected by nondisclosure and the court is called upon to balance these two aspects of public interest and decide which aspect predominates. We shall have to discuss this problem of balancing different aspect of public interest a little later, but in the meanwhile let us continue with the examination of the decision in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra). Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then v/as) after pointing out that public interest was the sole foundation for the claim for protection under Section 123 proceeded to consider when a document can be said to be relating to "affairs of State" within the meaning of that section. The learned Judge observed that three different views are possible on this question. The first view is that documents relating to affairs of State are broadly divisible into two classes, one the disclosure of which will cause no injury to public interest and which may therefore be described as innocuous documents and the other the disclosure of which may cause injury to public interest and may therefore be described as noxious documents; it is the head of the department who decides to which class the document in respect of which the claim for protection against disclosure is made, belongs; if he comes to the conclusion that the document is innocuous, he will give permission for its production; if, however, he comes to the conclusion that the document is noxious, he will withhold such permission; in any case the court does not materially come into the picture. The second view is that documents relating to affairs of State should be confined only to the class of noxious documents and when a question arises, it is for the court to deter mine the character of the document and if necessary, to enquire whether its disclosure would lead to injury to public interest, The third view which does not accept either of the two extreme positions would be that the court can determine the character of the document and if it comes to the conclusion that the document belongs to the noxious class, it may leave it to the head of the department to decide whether its production should be permitted or not, for it is not the policy of Section 123 that in the case of every noxious document, the head of the department must always withhold permission. The learned Judge then proceeded to consider which of the three views represents the correct legal position and for that purpose, turned to examine Section 162 and after discussing the true import of that section and holding that where an objection to the disclosure of a document is raised under Section 123 on the ground that it relates to affairs of State toil cannot (SIC)pect the (SIC)dreaming for the purpose of deciding the objection, the learned juge(SIC) accepted the third view as courses and sammarised his conclusion in the following words:

Thus our concussion is that reading Sections 123 and 162 together the court cannot hold an enquiry into the possible injury to public interest which may result from the disclosure of the document in question. That is a matter for the (SIC) authority concerned to decide; but the Court is competent, and indeed is bond to hold a preliminary enquiry and determine the validity of the objections to its production, and that necessarily involves an enquiry in the question as to whether the evidence relates to an affairs of State under Section 123 or not.

In this enquiry the court has to determine the character or class of the document. If it comes to the conclusion that the document does not relate to affairs of State then it should reject the claim for privilege and direct its production. If it comes to the conclusion that the document relates to the affairs of State it should leave it to the head of the department to decide whether he should permit its production or not.

A disclosure can be allowed only in exceptional circumstances where there is no injury to public interest because public interest is always paramount to private interest. In fact, these provisions clearly contain four important attributes of the doctrine of disclosuret--

(1) public interest, (2) confidentiality, (3) candour, and (4) expediency.

Subject to the overriding power of the court to disallow the claim of privilege in exceptional cases, the following provide working rules of guidance for the courts in the matter of deciding the question of privilege in regard to unpublished documents pertaining to matters of State: (a) "records relating to affairs of State" mean documents of State whose production would endanger the public interest; (b) document pertaining to public security, defence and foreign relations are documents relating to affairs of State: (c) unpublished documents relating to trading, commercial or contractual activities of the State are not, ordinarily, to be considered as documents relating to affairs of State; but in special circumstances they may partake of that character: (d) in cases of documents mentioned in (c) supra, it is a question of fact in each case whether they relate to affairs of State or not in the sense that if they are disclosed public interest would suffer.

In view of the fact that Section 123 confers wide powers on the head of the department, this Court took the (sic)tion of sounding a warning that the heads of departments should act with scrupulous care in exercising their right under Section 123 and should never claim privilege only or even mainly on the ground that the disclosure of the document in question may defeat the defence placed by the State. Considerations which are relevant in claiming privilege on the ground that the affairs of the State may be prejudiced by disclosure must always be distinguished from considerations of expediency which may persuade the head of the department to raise a plea of privilege on the ground that if the document is produced, the document will defeat the defence made by the State.

Supreme Court of India

R.K. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993

Section 123 of the Evidence Act gives right to the government, in other words, to the minister or in his absence head of the department, to claim privilege, in other words immunity from disclosure of the unpublished official state documents in public interest. In a democracy, governed by rule of law State is treated at par with a person by Art. 19(6) in commercial/industrial activities. It possessed of no special privileges. This Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain & Ors. [1975] 2 SCR 333 at 349 held that an objection claiming immunity should be raised by an affidavit affirmed by the head of the department. The court may also require a Minister to affirm an affidavit. They must state with precision the grounds or reasons in support of the public interest immunity. It is now settled law that the initial claim for public interest immunity to produce unpublished official records for short "state documents" should be made through an affidavit generally by the Minister concerned, in his absence by the Secretary of the department or head of the Department. In the latter case the court may require an affidavit of the Minister himself to be filed. The affidavit should indicate that the documents in question have been carefully read and considered and the deponent has been satisfied, supported by reasons or grounds valid and germane, as to why it is apprehended that public interest would be injured by disclosure of the document summoned or called for. If the court finds the affidavit unsatisfactory a further opportunity may be given to file additional affidavit or be may be summoned for cross-examination. If the court is satisfied from the affidavit and the reasons assigned for withholding production or disclosure, the court may pass an appropriate order in that behalf. The Court though would give utmost consideration and deference to the view of the Minister, yet it is not conclusive. The claim for immunity should never be on administrative routine nor be a garb to avoid inconvenience, embarrassment or adverse to its defence in the action, the latter themselves a ground for disclosure. If the court still desires to peruse the record for satisfying itself whether the reasons assigned in the affidavit would justify withholding disclosure, the court would, in camera, examine the record and satisfy itself whether the public interest subserves withholding production or disclosure or making the document as part of the record. On the one side there is the public interest to be protected; on the other side of the scale is the interest of the litigant who legitimately wants production of some documents, which he believes will support his own or defeat his adversary's case. Both are matters of public interest, for it is also in the public interest that justice should be done between litigating parties by production of all relevant documents for which public interest immunity has been claimed. They must be weighed one competing public interest in the balance as against another equally competing public administration of justice. The reasons are: there is public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of the document in question and there is public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by withholding the document which must be produced, if justice is to be done. The court also should be satisfied whether, the evidence relates to the affairs of the State under sec. 123 or not; evidence is relevant to the issue and admissible. As distinct from private interest, the principle on which protection is given is that where a conflict arise between public and private interest, private interest must yield to the public interest.

In S.P. Gupta & Ors. etc. etc v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. [1982] 2 SCR 365, this court by seven Judges' bench held that the court would allow the objection to disclosure if it finds that the document relates to affairs of State and its disclosure would be injurious to public interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the conclusion that the document does not relate to affairs of State or that the public interest does not compel its non-disclosure or that the public interest in the administration of justice in the particular case before it overrides all other aspects of public interest, it will overrule the objection and order disclosure of the document.

When an objection was raised against disclosure of a particular document that it belongs to a class which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed, whether or not it would be harmful to disclose that class document or the contents of that particular document forming part of the class would be injurious to the interest of the state or the public service, it would be difficult to decide in vacuum the claim because it would almost invariably be supported by an affidavit made either by the Minister or head of the department and if he asserts that to disclose the contents of the document would or might do to the nation or the public service a grave injury, the court out of deference will be slow to question his opinion or to allow any interest, even that of justice, to prevail over it unless there can be shown to exist some factors suggesting either lack of good faith or an error of judgment on the part of the minister or the head of the department or the claim was made in administrative routine without due consideration or to avoid inconvenience or injury to their defence. However, it is well-settled law that the court is not bound by the statement made by the minister or the head of the department in the affidavit and it retains the power to balance the injury to the State or the public service against the risk of injustice. The real question which the court is required to consider is whether public interest is so strong to override the ordinary right and interest of the litigant that he shall be able to lay before a court of justice of the relevant evidence. In balancing the competing interest it is the duty of the court to see that there is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service by disclosure of the document and there is a public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by withholding documents which must be produced if justice is to be done. It is, therefore, the paramount right and duty of the court not of the executive to decide whether a document will be produced or may he withheld. The court must decide which aspect of public interest predominates or in other words whether the public interest which requires that the document should not be produced out weighs the public interest that a court of justice in performing its functions should not be denied access to relevant evidence. In some cases, therefore, the court must weight one competing aspect of the public interest against the other, and decide where the balance lies. If the nature of the injury to the public interest is so grave a character then even private interest or any other interest cannot be allowed to prevail over it. The basic question to which the court would. therefore, have to address itself for the purpose of deciding the validity of the objection would be, whether the document relates to affairs of State or in other words, is it of such a character that its disclosure would be against the interest of the State or the public service and if so, whether the public interest in- it-; non-disclosure is so strong that it must prevail over the private interesting the administration of justice and on that account, it should not be allowed to be disclosed. By operation of Sec. 162 of Evidence Act the final decision in regard to the validity of an objection against disclosure raised under section 123 would always be with the court. The contention, therefore, that the claim of public interest immunity claimed in the affidavit of the State Minister for Finance and the Secretary need privacy and claim for immunity of state documents from disclosure is unsustainable.

In a democracy it is inherently difficult to function at high governmental level without some degree of secrecy. No Minister, nor it Senior Officer would effectively discharge his official responsibilities if every document prepared to formulates sensitive policy decisions or to make assessment of character rolls of coordinate officers at that level if they were to be made public. Generally assessment of honesty and integrity is a high responsibility. At high co- ordinate level it would be a delegate one which would furthered compounded when it is not backed up with material. Seldom material will be available in sensitive areas. Reputation gathered by an officer around him would form the base. If the reports are made known, or if the disclosure is routine, public interest grievously would suffer. On the other hand, confidentiality would augment honest assessment it) improve efficiency and integrity in the officers. The business of the Govt., when transacted by bureaucrats, even in personal level, it would be difficult to have equanimity if the inner working of the Govt. machinery is needlessly exposed to the public. On such sensitive issues it would hamper the expression of frank and forthright views or opinions. Therefore, it may be that at that level the deliberations and in exceptional cases that class or category of documents get protection in particular, on policy matters. Therefore. the court would he willing to respond to the executive public interest immunity to disclose certain documents where national security or high policy, high sensitivity is involved.

In Asiatic Petroleium v. Anglo-Persian Oil 1916 K.B. 822, the court refused production of the letter concerning the Govt. plans relating to Middle Estern campaigns of the First World was. as claimed by the Board of Admiralty. Similarly, in Duncan v. Cammell Laired, 1942 A.C. 624, tile House of lords refused disclosure of the design of sub-marine. The national defence as a class needs protection in the interest of security of the State. Similarly to keep good diplomatic relations the state documents or official or confidential documents between the Govt. and its agencies need immunity from production.

In Council of Civil Service Union v. Minster for Civil Service 1985 A.C. 374. the Govt. Communications headquarters (GCHQ) functions were to ensure the security of military and official communications and to provide the Govt. with signals intelligence. They have to handle secret information vital to national security. The staff of CCHQ was permitted to be members of the trade union, but litter on instructions were issued, without prior consultation, amending the Staff rules and directed them to dissociate from tile trade union activities. The Previous practice of prior consultation before amendment was not followed. Judicial review was sought of the amended rules pleading that failure to consult the union before amendment amounts to unfair act and summoned the records relating to it. An affidavit of the cabinet Secretary was filed explaining the disruptive activities, the national security, and the union actions designed to damage Govt. agencies. Explaining the risk of participation by the members in further disruption, the House held that executive action was not immune from judicial review merely because it was carried out in pursuance of a power derived from a common law, or prerogative, rather than a statutory source and a minister acting under a prerogative power might, depending upon its subject matter, whether under the same duty to act fairly as in the case of action under a statutory power. But, however, certain information. on consideration of national security, was withheld and the failure of prior consultation of the trade union or its members before issue the amended instruction or amending the rules was held not infracted. In Burmah Oil Co's. case. at an action by the Oil Company against the Bank for declaration that the sale of units in British Petroleum held by the company at 2.30 Pounds per unit was unconscionable and inequitable. The oil company sought production of the cabinet decision and 62 documents in possession and control of the bank. The state claimed privilege on the basis of the certificate issued by the Minister. House of Lords per majority directed to disclose certain documents which were necessary to dispose of the case fairly. Lord Scarman laid that they were relevant, but their significance was not such a:, to override the public interest objections to their production. Lords Wilberforce dissented and held that public interest demands protection of them.

In The Australian Communist Party & Ors. v. Commonwealth & Ors. [1950-51] 83 C.L.R. p. 1, at p. 179, Dixon, J. while considering the claim of secrecy and non-availability of the proclamation or declaration of the Governor General in Council based on the advice tendered by the Minister rejected the privilege and held that the court would go into the question whether the satisfaction reached by the Governor General in Council was justified. The court has ,one into the question of competence to dissolve a voluntary or corporate association i.e. Communist Party as unlawful within the meaning of Sec. 5(2) of the Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth. In The Queen v. Toohey [1982-83] 151 C.L.R. 170, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, 1978 provides appointment of an Administrator to exercise and perform the functions conferred under the Act. The Town Planning Act, 1979 regulates the area of land to be treated as towns. The Commissioner exercising powers under the Act held that part of the peninsula specified in the schedule was not available for town Planning Act. When it was challenged. there was a change in the law and the Minister filed an affidavit claiming the privilege of certain documents stating that with a view to preserve the land to the original, the Govt. have decided to treat that the land will continue to be held by or on behalf of the originals. Gibbs,. CJ. held that under modern conditions, a responsible Govt., Parliament could not always be relied on to check excesses of power by the Crown or its Ministers. The court could ensure that the statutory power is exercised only for the purpose it is granted. The secrecy of the counsel of the Crown is by no means complete and if evidence is available to show that the Crown acted for an ulterior purpose, it is difficult to see why it should not be acted upon. It was concluded thus: "In my opinion no convincing reason can be suggested for limiting the ordinary power of the courts to inquire whether there has been a proper exercise of a statutory power by giving to the Crown a special immunity from review. If the statutory power is granted to the Crown for one purpose, it is clear that it is not lawfully exercised if it is used for another. The courts have the power and duty to ensure that statutory powers are exercised only in accordance with law". The factors-to decide the "public interest immunity would include" (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, where the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced. In President Nixon's case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is the court's duty to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers of the Constitution. In deciding whether the matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of Government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is the responsibility of the court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The separation of powers given in the Constitution were not intended to operate with absolute independence when essential criminal statute would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of needed evidence. The afore discussion lead to the following conclusions. The President while exercising the Executive power under Art.73 read with Art. 53, discharges such of those Powers which are exclusively conferred to his individual discretion like appointing the Prime Minister under Art. 75 which are not open to judicial review. The President exercises his power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head under Art. 74 (1). They exercise the power not as his delegates but as officers subordinate to him by constitutional mechanism envisaged under Art. 77 and express in the name of President as per Rules of Business made under Art.77(3). They bear two different facets (i) the President exercise his power on the aid and advice; (ii) the individual minister or Council of Minister with the Prime Minister at the head discharge the functions without reference to the President. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister is enjoined under Art. 78 to communicate to the President all decisions of the Council of Minister relating to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation and to furnish such information relating to the administration or reconsideration by the Council of Ministers if the President so requires and submit its decisions thereafter to the President. That by itself is not conclusive and does not get blanket public interest immunity from disclosure. The Council of Ministers though shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People, their acts are subject to the Constitution, Rule of law and judicial review are parts of the scheme of the Constitution as basic structure and judicial review is entrusted to this Court (High Court under Art.226). When public interest immunity against disclosure of the state documents in the transaction of business by Council of Ministers of the affairs of State is made, in the clash of those interests, it is the right and duty of the court to weigh the balance in the scales that the harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service and equally of the administration of justice. Each case must be considered on its backdrop. The President has no implied authority under the Constitution to withhold the documents. On the other hand it is his solemn constitutional duty to act in aid of the court to effectuate judicial review. The Cabinet as a narrow centre of the national affairs must be in a possession of all relevant information which is secret or confidential. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that information relating to national security, diplomatic relations. internal security or sensitive diplomatic correspondence per se are class documents and that public interest demands total immunity from disclosure. Even the slightest divulgence would endanger the lives of the personnel engaged in the services etc. The maxim Salus Popules Cast Supreme Lax which means that regard for public welfare is the highest law, is the basic postulate for this immunity. Political decisions like declaration of emergency under Art. 356 are not open to judicial review but it is for the electorate at the polls to decide the executive wisdom. In other areas every communication which preceded from one officer of the State to another or the officers inter se does not necessarily per-se relate, to the affairs of the State. Whether they so relate has got to be determined by reference to the nature of the consideration, the level at which it was considered, the contents of the document or class to which it relates to and their indelible impact on public administration or public service and administration of justice itself. Article 74(2) is not a total bar for production of the records. Only the actual advice tendered by the Minister or Council or Ministers to the President and the question whether any, and if so, what ad\-ice was tendered by the Minister or Council of ministers to the President, shall not be enquired into by the court. In other words the bar of judicial review is confined to the factum of advice, its extent, ambit and scope but not the record i.e. the material on which the advice is founded. In S.P. Gupta's case (his court held that only the actual advice tendered to the President is immuned from enquiry and the immunity does not extend to other documents or records which form part of the advice tendered to the President.

025. Section 123
Download PDF • 431KB

bottom of page