RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) A simple looking issue concerning the claim of privilege in regard to Annual Confidential Report has invited interesting debate requiring survey of law relating to claim of privilege in our legal system. Can ACR be withheld from scrutiny of the court on the ground of being a privileged communication, would be question requiring decision in this case ?
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 B.B. Singla has filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Branch Manager with effect from May, 1997, when his batch-mates were so promoted. Respondent No. 1 pleads that his performance was admittedly comparatively better than his batch-mates. A witness was summoned to produce the Annual Confidential Reports of respondent No. 1 for the period as noted, when an application was filed under Section 124 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC by the petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation pleading that his reports cannot be allowed to be produced in public interest and privilege was claimed in this regard. This issue arose before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, who dismissed the application filed by the petitioner claiming privilege when asked to produce the Annual Confidential Reports of respondent No. 1 for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.12.1999.
(3.) 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 H.P. v. Manmohan Bhardwaj, 1983 LAB IC 469 and Vasant v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 LAB IC 673. View taken in these cases is that claim of privilege in respect of ACR and minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee are impermissible. He has not made reference to contrary view taken by this court and some other Courts in cases of The State of Punjab and others v. Surjit Singh, AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 11 and N. Muthu v. The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy E lectricals Ltd., 2000(4) SCT 856 (Madras). This court in Surjit Singh's case (supra) has observed that view taken earlier in Full Bench decision in Governor General In Council v. H. Peer Mohd. Khuda Bux, AIR 1950 EP 228 (FB) and the Single Bench decision in the cases of Union of India v. Raj Kumar Gujral, AIR 1967 Punj 387 and H.L. Rodhey v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 Punj 255 is no more a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493. Obviously, the counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon these decisions and has remained silent about the subsequent transformation of doctrine of 'Crown Privilege' into doctrine of public interest immunity etc. Mr. Anupam Gupta has with sufficient eloquence traced the development of law in this regard starting from Full Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Khuda Bux (supra) and has referred to the travels of English law in this regard. He has rightly pointed out that we are now living in the era of Right to Information where disclosure of information is now regulated under statute, of course subject to limitation contained therein.;