State of U.P Vs Raj Narain & Ors

STATE OF U.
P VS RAJ NARAIN & ORS

1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF THE U.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJ NARAIN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
24/01/1975
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BACKGROUND –
The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision to disclose a government record.
Raj Narain requested the government of the State of Uttar Pradesh to disclose the document
“Blue Book” which contained security guidelines regarding the Prime Minister of India’s travel.
Government officials declined to produce the document, claiming that it was an unpublished
official record and against the public interest. The Court reasoned that the document was not an
unpublished official record since the government official failed to file an affidavit to claim it as
such. In addition, the Court reasoned that it had the authority to determine whether a document is
of public interest.
FACTS -
Raj Narain, an Indian national, filed an election petition before the Allahabad High Court,
alleging misuse of public finances by a political party for the re-election of the Prime Minister of
India. For proving these allegations, he summoned the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to
produce a document called Blue Book, which contained security guidelines for the protection of
the Prime Minister in times of travel.
In response, an official of the Home Security of Uttar Pradesh was instructed to claim a non-
disclosure privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. It states that “no one shall be
permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affair of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.”
Upon the official’s failure to timely submit an affidavit, Narain argued that the government was
obligated to produce the Blue Book because the government did not raise its non-disclosure
privilege and that the document did not relate to the affairs of the State.
The High Court ruled that due to the government’s failure to file an affidavit in the first instance,
the disclosure of the document could only be prohibited if it was an unpublished government
record and that its production would be against the public interest.
The court concluded that the Blue Book was not an unpublished record within the meaning of
Section 123 of the Evidence Act because the Union Government and a member of the Parliament
had referred to a portion of the document and that the government failed to specify its reasons as
to why the disclosure would be against the public interest. Accordingly, the Allahabad High
Court ordered the production of the Blue Book in favor of Narain.
Subsequently, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh appealed the decision to the Supreme
Court of India.
ISSUES –
Whether the Blue Book was an unpublished government record within the meaning of Section
123 of the Evidence Act?
JUDGEMENT –
Justice Alagiriswami and Untwalia delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of India.
The issue before the Court was whether the Blue Book was an unpublished government record
within the meaning of Section 123 of the Evidence Act. According to the Court, the underlying
purpose of the section is to prevent “injury to the public,” through disclosure or production of
government documents, and it is the function of the judiciary to balance that interest “against the
public interest in the administration of justice that courts should have the fullest possible access
to all relevant materials.”
In general, “State papers, confidential official documents and communications between the
Government and its officers or between such officers are privileged from production on the
ground of public policy or as being detrimental to the public interest or service.” And Section
123 imposes the obligation on the government to timely claim such privilege in an affidavit.
In this case, the Court, while acknowledging the government’s failure to file an affidavit in the
first instance, proceeded with its analysis of the Blue Book in light of the above-mentioned
standards. It ruled that the document could not be considered a published government record
merely based on the fact that some of its parts had been disclosed by other government entities.
Accordingly, the Court had to consider whether the document related to government confidential
information and whether its non-disclosure was in the public interest.
It first held that the Court “has the overriding power to disallow a claim of privilege raised by the
State in respect of an unpublished document about matters of State, but in its discretion, the
Court will exercise its power only in exceptional circumstances when public interest demands,
that is, when the public interest served by the disclosure outweighs that served by the
nondisclosure.” As applicable in this case, the Supreme Court also noted that under Section 162
of the Evidence Act, an objection to disclosure of a privileged government record “should be
filed on the date which is fixed for the production of the document so that the Court may decide
the validity of such objection.”
In the present case, the Court without further analyzing the interest of the public in non-
disclosure of the Blue Book affirmed the High Court’s judgment based on the government’s
failure to timely raise its privilege in form of an affidavit. It found that the High Court “was right
in drawing inference from non-filing of the affidavit” that no privilege was claimed. And that it
had the judicial authority “to look to the document itself and make a decision as to whether the
document concerned was such which at all related to any affairs of the State.”
Justice Matthew delivered the Court’s concurring opinion. He noted that privilege existed
concerning the government document and the right to waive such privilege. He recognized that
the right of a party to waive privilege does not extend to cases that may harm the public interest.
Therefore, the Court was obligated to examine reasons submitted in an affidavit and that it could
not decide on such matter without adequate inquiry.
CONCLUSION –
This is a landmark case that held that Rules of evidence that prevent disclosure of certain
government documents in court proceedings may be overridden if the public interest in
disclosure outweighs the public interest in keeping documents secret. Thus, the government had
to disclose documents regarding security arrangements for the Prime Minister's travels within the
country, so long as disclosure did not endanger his or her security or public order, the Court
reasoned that people have the right to know everything that is done by public officials in their
official capacity. This right is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, but it is not
absolute and may be subject to restrictions for reasons of public security.

State of U.P Vs Raj Narain & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of U.P Vs Raj Narain & Ors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of U.P Vs Raj Narain & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF U.

P VS RAJ NARAIN & ORS

You might also like