Public interest privilege under Evidence Act can survive defective affidavit, with court power to inspect and partly disclose documents.

Section 123 of the Evidence Act protects official documents only where disclosure would injure public interest, not merely because they are confidential or official. A privilege claim is ordinarily supported by an affidavit from the departmental head, but an initial defect does not waive the claim if the objection is clearly maintained before final decision. The court may determine the validity of the objection, require further affidavits, inspect the documents where necessary, and order partial disclosure if severable innocuous parts can be separated without distortion. Limited prior reference to parts of a document does not make the whole record published or destroy the privilege claim. The matter required reconsideration on affidavits, with liberty to protect sensitive portions.

---

---

Issues: Whether documents claimed by the State, including the Blue Book and related police/security papers, were protected from disclosure under section 123 of the Evidence Act, whether the claim could fail for want of an affidavit at the first instance, and whether the court could inspect the documents and separate innocuous parts from protected parts.

Analysis: The governing principle under sections 123 and 162 is that exclusion of evidence depends on injury to public interest, not on the mere fact that a document is confidential or official. A claim of privilege is ordinarily supported by an affidavit of the head of the department, but a defect in the first instance does not forfeit the claim where the objection is otherwise clearly asserted before final decision. The court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the objection, and where the materials before it are insufficient, it may call for further affidavits and, if necessary, inspect the documents. Partial disclosure may be ordered where a severable innocuous part can be separated without giving a distorted or misleading impression. Limited prior reference to parts of a document does not make the whole record published or destroy the claim under section 123.

Conclusion: The claim of privilege was not rejected on the ground adopted by the High Court. The matter had to be reconsidered on the affidavits, with power to inspect the documents if needed, and with liberty to protect the portions whose disclosure would injure public interest.

---