Chandigarh, July 16
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has evaluated not just the native, but also the laws of England, Australia and the US, to hold annual confidential reports are not privileged documents. It means the ACRs are open to judicial scrutiny.
In the first-of-its-kind judgment on a petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Justice Ranjit Singh has also drawn a parallel between foreign and native laws to further hold that information cannot be protected from disclosure merely because it has been supplied in confidence.
The issue, on the face of it, may appear utterly uncomplicated. But Justice Ranjit Singh’s order, fit-for-law-school curriculum, runs into almost 35 pages as the Judge had to conscientiously deal with conflicting judgments in the matter.
Justice Ranjit Singh, in the beginning, has himself observed: “The trial judge has made the issue look rather simple and has decided the same by relying on two precedents in the cases of State of HP vs Manmohan Bhardwaj and Vasant vs State of Maharashtra.
“A simple-looking issue concerning the claim of privilege in regard to an annual confidential report has invited interesting debate requiring the survey of law relating to the claim of privilege in our legal system. Can an ACR be withheld from the scrutiny of the court on the ground of being a privileged communication, would be question requiring decision in this case?
Going into the background, Justice Ranjit Singh has stated that respondent B.B. Singla filed a suit for declaring he was entitled to promotion as senior branch manager from the time his batchmates were promoted. But the insurance corporation pleaded his reports could not be produced in public interest and the privilege was claimed. Chandigarh’s Civil Judge (Junior Division), however, dismissed the application.
Taking up the matter, Justice Ranjit Singh stated: “In our country, we do not have common law protection as crown privilege-now called public interest immunity-as it is in England, and we, in this country, have only a provision of law under which such immunity is to be claimed in the forms of Sections 123, 124 and 162 of the Evidence Act.
“Since the Judges’ case is said to have brought the law in this country in line with the law in England, Australia and the US, it would be appropriate to have a brief survey of development of law in this regard, specially in England.
After mulling over the issue, Justice Ranjit Singh held the view that could be culled out was “that the court has a jurisdiction to order the disclosure of a document, for which crown privilege, is claimed as it is the right and duty of the court to hold the balance between the interests of public in ensuring the proper administration of justice, and the public interest in the withholding of the documents, disclosure whereof would be contrary to the national interest”.
Justice Ranjit Singh has ruled: “Claims to public interest immunity fall into two broad categories, i.e., the contents claim, and the class claim. The former claim is based on the contents of the document and the latter claim on the fact that the document
formed part of a class that ought to be protected from disclosure irrespective of its contents.”
Before parting with the judgment, Justice Ranjit Singh held: “In the present case, claim for immunity is made on the ground that the document is a confidential report…. Disclosure can be prevented only where it is shown to be leading to injury to public interest….
“The claim of privilege in regard to a class of document known as annual confidential report, thus, cannot be upheld.… Disclosure can always be ordered where the demand of justice would require it. Accordingly, it would not be possible to hold that the annual confidential report is such a document as a class that can be withheld from production.”
