Privilege over unpublished official records fails without proper departmental approval, document-wise consideration, and a specific public interest basis.

Privilege over unpublished official records can be sustained only if asserted by the proper departmental head and supported by an affidavit showing application of mind to each document and a permissible explanation of how disclosure would harm public interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax was not accepted as the proper departmental head for this purpose, and his affidavit dealt with two files as a whole without individual consideration of the documents. On inspection, the records did not contain material justifying withholding on privilege grounds. The court also rejected reliance on clubbing assessee records or on a general statutory discretion to deny material to a person otherwise entitled to it, and disallowed the privilege claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim of privilege over the files and documents was sustainable under the law of evidence.

Analysis: A claim of privilege for unpublished official records can be upheld only when it is made by the proper departmental head and the affidavit shows application of mind to each document and indicates, within permissible limits, why disclosure would injure public interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax was not treated as the departmental head for this purpose. The affidavit filed by him covered only two files as a whole and did not show consideration of each individual document. On inspection of the files, the documents did not disclose any material of the type that would justify withholding them on privilege grounds. The court also rejected the attempt to rely on the clubbing of assessee records or on the general discretion under the income-tax provisions to withhold material from a person otherwise entitled to it.

Conclusion: The claim of privilege was not made out and was disallowed.

---