Scribd
Upload
8 views14 pages

Government Privileges and Contractual Liability

The document discusses various privileges granted to the government in legal contexts, including extended time for execution of decrees and longer limitation periods for suits. It outlines the government's right to withhold documents based on specific sections of the Indian Evidence Act and the conditions under which this privilege can be challenged in court. Case law examples illustrate the balance between government privilege and the need for transparency in the interest of justice.

Uploaded by

pruthvipatil2324
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views14 pages

Government Privileges and Contractual Liability

The document discusses various privileges granted to the government in legal contexts, including extended time for execution of decrees and longer limitation periods for suits. It outlines the government's right to withhold documents based on specific sections of the Indian Evidence Act and the conditions under which this privilege can be challenged in court. Case law examples illustrate the balance between government privilege and the need for transparency in the interest of justice.

Uploaded by

pruthvipatil2324
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

Government Privileges II

Dr. Anu Prasannan


Miscellaneous privileges
• Time for execution
• Apart from Sec. 80, Sec 82 C.P.C provides that when a
decree is passed against the Union of India, or a State
or public officer
-a time shall be specified in the decree within which it
shall be satisfied,
-and if the decree is not satisfied within the time so
specified
-the court shall report the case for order of the govt.
-execution shall not be issued unless it remains
unsatisfied for a period of 3 months computed from
the date of such decree
• Limitation Act
• Art. 112 of the Limitation Act the govt. enjoys the
benefit of 30 years limitation for institution of
suits by it on its behalf
• The period of limitation allowed to govt. is much
longer than allowed in respect of suits by private
parties
• This again causes hardship to the people and Law
commission has suggested for repealing Art. 112
• Enforcement of court orders
-if the govt. does not obey a court order
-it commits contempt of court for which in suitable
cases,
-the concerned officer can be sent to prison and the
govt. property attached
• In Union of India v Satish Chandra, J. Krishna Iyer
mentioned:
-SC has cautioned patience on the part of the courts
before imposing punishment because the govt.
‘grinds slowly’.
-court should use its contempt only sparingly if it is
convinced that “there has been willful disobedience”
Privilege to withhold documents
• In India privilege of govt. to withhold documents
from courts is claimed on the basis of Sec. 123 of
Indian Evidence Act
• Sec. 123 (sec. 129) BSA says that no one shall be
permitted to give any evidence derived from
unpublished official reports relating to the affairs
of the state except with the permission of the
head of the concerned department, who shall
give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.
• Sec. 124 (Sec.130) extends this privilege to
confidential official communication also
• The privilege if claimed is not conclusive, as it
is based under Sec. 162 (165 BSA) of the
Evidence Act which provides that
-when a witness is required to produce a
document, he must bring it to the court and
then may raise an objection to its production
and admissibility
State of Punjab v Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
• District judge challenged the validity of his dismissal
order and wanted the production of minutes of the
meeting of the council of ministers and also copy of
the recommendation of the Public Service
Commission to fortify his defence.
• (a) Minutes were not allowed to be produced bz of
the prohibition in Art. 163(3) of the Constitution
• (b)Regarding PSC recommendations court held that
its disclosure would involve injury to public interest
• Court mentioned on the extent of privilege by
holding that govt. documents can be classified into 2
categories
1. Document relating to the affairs of the state
(here the claim of privilege is not conclusive, court is
required to enquire into the nature of the
document in the light of relevant facts and
circumstances)
2.Documents not relating to affairs of State
(No immunity)
In order to guard against the possible misuse of
the privilege, court developed certain norms
1. Claim of the privilege should be in the form of an
affidavit which must be signed by the minister or the
secretary of the department
2. Affidavit must indicate within permissible limits the
reasons why the disclosure would result in public injury
-and the document has been read carefully and
considered and authority is fully convinced that its
disclosure would injure public interest
3. If the affidavit is found unsatisfactory court my
summon the authority for cross-examination.
Case laws
1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain court compelled
the production of blue books of the police and
disallowed the claim of privilege
2. State of Orissa v Jagannath Jena SC again disallowed
the privilege on the ground that the public interest
had not been clearly brought out in the affidavit
3. State v Midland Rubber & Produce Co. HC of Kerala
went a step further and reserved to itself the right
to inspect the documents before allowing the claim
of privilege.
• Anil Yadav v St. of Bihar court exposed the
brutalities of the police wherein 33 suspected
criminals were blinded by the police in Bihar
by putting acid into their eyes.
• S.P Gupta v Union of India SC rejected the
govt’s claim of privilege over the
correspondence relating to transfer and non
extension of 2 judges of HC.
• In Doypack Systems (P) Ltd. v Union of India
SC held that it is the duty of the court to prevent
disclosure of documents where Art. 74(2) of the
Constitution is applicable.
Art. 74(2) provides that the advice tendered by the
ministers to the President shall not be inquired into
in any court.
-documents falling within this ‘class’ are entitled to
protection in public interest as a “class” because it is
necessary for the proper functioning of the State.
However, ‘class privilege’ was becoming
obstruction in the administration of justice
• For this reason in R.K. Jain v Union of India
SC listed what is ‘class” privilege under A. 74(2) and held that
advice tendered by the Cabinet to the President cannot be
enquired into by any court does not allow a ‘class’ privilege.
-class privilege thus include:
1. Information relating to national security
2. Diplomatic relations
3. Internal security
4. Sensitive diplomatic correspondence as ‘class’ documents
for which public interest demands complete imunity from
disclosure.
• Thus while deciding the claim of privilege,
the court would give utmost consideration to
the views of the govt. but it will not be
conclusive

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy