Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"It has been further submitted on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 of T. S. 10/67 that the claim for privilege against the inspection of the documents by them fey the State of Bihar is futile as the documents in question were allowed to be inspected by them and it was not claimed at the early stage of the filing of the documents. But I do not agree with the submission of the lawyer for the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 of T. S. 10/67 that the delay in claiming the privilege against the inspection of the document will disentitle the State of Bihar to claim privilege against the inspection if the documents are privileged documents. In my opinion, if the documents are privileged documents, the right to claim the privilege against their production or disclosure is not lost merely because it has not been done so at the time of filing the same in court or the same were inspected by the opposite party."

"I have shown above that the State of Bihar defendant No. 7 has not claimed any privilege against the inspection of the documents described in item Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of the list of the petition dated 30-7-75 nor it has given any reason why it is apprehended that their disclosure or inspection by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 of T. S. 10/67 is injurious or detrimental of the public interest. As such the documents against the inspection of which, the privilege has been claimed by the State of Bihar defendant No. 7 of T. S. No. 10/67 are not privileged documents."

Annexure '1' to the Revision application is affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Forest Department claiming privilege in respect of the documents (sls. 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the petition dated 30-7- 75). This is an affidavit objecting to the inspection of the documents at sls. 2, 3, 6 and 7. No privilege has been claimed in respect of some of the documents which are said to have already been exhibited. It seems that the learned Subordinate Judge did not apply his mind to the affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the Forest Department (annexure 18) and committed error of record in observing that the State did not claim any privilege against inspec- tion of documents mentioned at sls. 2, 3 and 6 of the petition dated 30-7-75 filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 6.

When the legislature has refrained from defining the affairs of the State, it is inexpedient to define this expression. It means matters of a public nature, with which the State is concerned, or the disclosure of which will be prejudicial to the public service, when the State is a party to the litigation and documents relate to commercial or contractual activities of the State privilege can be claimed in respect of such documents but privilege should not be claimed unadvisedly, lightly or capriciously. Law provides for the court to adjudicate on the merits of the claim. In the instant case, as pointed out above, the learned Subordinate Judge has committed error of record in observing that the State has not claimed privilege in respect of the documents mentioned at sls. 2, 3, 6 and 7. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the learned counsel that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed error and material irregularities in adjudicating on the merits of the claim of privilege made by the State Government. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I do not wish to express any opinion on the merit of the claim of privilege made by the State Govt.