P.S. NARAYANASWAMY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund in I.A. No. 335 of 1950 in O. S. No. 74 of 1949.

(2.) THE facts are: The petitioner P.S. Narayanaswami before us was employed in the Chinchona Directorate located at Ootacamund. He has been dismissed from service. Thereupon, he has filed the suit O. S. No. 74 of 1949 against the State of Madras. This former dismissed employee wanted the production of a considerable quantity of unpublished official records. Therefore, summons was issued to the Director who is the head of this department. He looked into the records asked to be produced. Then he has filed an affidavit classifying the records sought to be produced under two heads, viz., those in regard to which he claimed privilege on the ground that the disclosure of those documents would be prejudicial to public interest and those which might be disclosed. The records were sent to court with an affidavit. The learned Subordinate Judge applied his own mind and upheld the claim of privilege in regard to documents for which privilege was claimed. In regard to documents which the director had no objection to disclose the plaintiff stated them to be irrelevant for his purpose. Thereupon the learned Subordinate Judge has passed an order to that effect and the present petition is preferred against that order.

(3.) THE aforesaid principles which constitute the four stages are deducible from the following decisions on this matter which can be grouped into, the decisions of the Madras High Court, the decisions of other High Courts and the decision of the House of Lords. In - -'Nagaraja Pillai v. Secretary of State', 39 Mad 304 a Bench of this court held that the object of Section 124, Evidence Act, is to prevent the disclosures to the detriment of public interests and the decisions as to such detriment rests with the officer to whom the communication is made and does not depend upon the special use of the word 'confidential'. The decision in - - 'Venkatachala Chettiar v. Sampathu Chettiar', 32 Mad 62 was followed. In - - 'Secretary of State v. Saminatha : AIR1930Mad342 , Jackson J. held that the public officer concerned and not the Judge is to decide whether the evidence referred to should' be given or withheld and if the objection is taken by the proper person the court will not go behind it. Under Section 124, it rested exclusively with the public officer concerned to withhold or give permission as he is the. sole judge as to whether public interest will or will not suffer by the disclosure though such discretion must naturally be exercised on well established principles and not arbitrarily. In - - 'Makky Moithu in re : AIR1943Mad278 Horwill J. on a question whether a certain report made by the Deputy Tahsildar of a Government Forest to the Collector was privileged, held that Section 124, Evidence Act, left it to the court to consider whether the communication was of the nature covered by the section; that is, the court has to decide whether the section can be applied. If it does the court has to exclude the document if the public officer concerned considers that public interest will suffer by the disclosure. Where the report was undoubtedly a confidential document and was not intended to be revealed to the public but only to such persons to whom the Collector thought fit to send it, the court cannot question the decision.