UNION OF INDIA Vs. H S PARASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision arising from an application made by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 123 and 124, Evidence Act before the trial court wherein privilege has been claimed regarding certain documents sought to be summoned by the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff was at the relevant time a Head Clerk serving in the Income Tax Department, who had sought to challenge certain remarks made adversely to him in his confidential reports by means of a suit claiming a declaration and injunction. In the course of that suit the plaintiff summoned-(i) his confidential annual character rolls of' some years, (ii) the transfer and posting file of Class III non gazetted Head Clerks for 1969-70, (iii) his own Vigilance file, (iv) the seniority list of Head Clerks in September, 1969 September, 1971 and September, 1973 (v) his own personal file and (vi) The Vigilance Manual. The Subordinate Judge trying the suit decided the application against the Commissioner of Income Tax and held that only the Vigilance Manual could be treated as privileged. The remaining documents were held to be not privileged.

(2.) The court below has followed the judgement of H. L. Anand, J., reported as S.N. Rai vs. Union of India, I.L.R. (1976) II Delhi 667= 1977. RAJDHANI L.R. 12, in which a claim regarding some documents consisting of confidential reports, notings, etc., relating to the work and conduct of civil servants was considered. In that case, most of the documents were allowed to be produced on the ground that candour in the expression of views in matters of public administration would not operate as a bar to their disclosure in a Court of law. It was also observed that some noting which may not relate to the petitioner might be withheld from inspection because they related to matters of policy. This decision was delivered on an analysis of three judgments of Supreme Court, namely- The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 493, Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964. S.C. 1658, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975. S.C. 865. It was found that there was a difference between the three judgments which seems to turn on the degree to which the Court could look into the documents concerning which privilege is sought. On a careful examination of three judgments and the judgment of Anand, J. I think, that it is possible to say that the procedure prescribed for deciding cases of privilege appears to have been overlooked by the Sub Judge in the case. It is not possible to conclude that an objection regarding privilege is ill founded till the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court has been followed. As this is a matter which arises again and again, and I have been referred to numerous other judgments in which the question of privilege has been gone into, I think a much simpler solution for deciding the question of privilege is necessary. With this point in view, I now analyse the con- clusions of the Supreme Court in the judgments so that the question of privilege can be dealt with in a simple manner whenever it arises.

(3.) In State of Punjab Vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, A.I.R. 1961, S. C. 493, the question before the Court related to the power of the Court to go into the finality of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State claiming privilege. It was indicated by the majority judgment that the purpose of the claim of privilege was not to defeat the claim of the other side nor should the apprehension that the disclosure of the document might provoke public critcism or censure in the legislature, but should be only the possibility of injury to public interest and nothing else. For this purpose, certain rules were laid down as to the procedure to be followed. The conclusion of the majority Court as set down in paragraph 25 of the judgment of Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) was as follows :-