MAHARANA MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. MAHARAJ ARVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of two application : one filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for inspection of the file No. No. 2/8/82/home-5/86 and the other filed by Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned Addl. Advocate general for the State claiming privileges as regards the unpublished Official record relating to public affairs.

(2.) IN the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was claimed that the aforesaid file has been submitted to the court by the learned Add. Advocate General and the Court by its order dated 21. 10. 1990 has ordered that this file be kept under a sealed cover and put in custody of the Addl. Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that he be allowed inspection of this file. This application has been filed on 8. 11. 1990.

(3.) SIMILAR is the case with regard to Sec. 129 of the Evidence Act, which provides that no one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser unless he offers himself as a witness in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court, necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given but no others. In this case, these communications and the legal advice have been disclosed to the Court and on their basis, the Court has come to the prima facie finding that notices should be issued to Shri M. I. Khan, the then Addl. Advocate General of the State and Shri S. R. Bhansali, the Secretary to the Govt. Law Department to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. Once these documents formed part of the court record and on their basis,a particular order was passed certain persons were calls open to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them, the inspection of those documents cannot be denied to any party. In this respect, Mr. Ramjethmalani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of their lordship of the Supreme Court In A,d. M. Jabalpur V. S. Shukla (1), wherein in para 486 of the Judgment, it was observed a follows:- Damnoo's case did not involve any question of privilege at all and in fact, the relevant file was produced by the Govt. for the perusal of the Court. The case also did not involve any question under Art. 359 (1) and the effect of provision like section 16a (9) was not even hypothetically considered by the Court. " Thereafter, in para 487 of the Judgement, it was observed that the view of the Bombay High Court that S. 16a (9) may be read down so as to enable the Court to examine the forbidden material is impossible to sustain What was can a court make of material which it cannot disclose to the detenu and how can it form a judicial opinion on matter not disclosed to a party before it It is, therefore, clear from these observations that once the Court uses the particular material and forms a particular opinion then that material becomes the part of the judicial record and that has to be disclosed to the parties concerned. It is one thing that if such privilege is claimed, the High Court can satisfy its curiosity while going through the file to find out whether the file containing the relevant information and material should enter into its judicial verdict or not ? Once that file has been submitted to the Court without any demur and the Court has acted upon on the Basis of Certain note sheets and certain informations and opinion contained in the file then that record forms part of the judicial record and nobody can be denied inspection of that file.