Official Secrets Act, 1923: ss.3 and 5 – Review petition – Preliminary objection raised by the respondent challenging the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that the three documents appended to the review petition and relied upon by the review petitioners were unauthorisedly removed from the office of the Ministry of Defence and and for the said reason, the review petition was not maintainable as said act violated the provisions of ss.3 and 5 of Official Secrets Act – The said three documents were admittedly published in two newspapers on different dates – Held: No law enacted by Parliament was brought to notice which specifically barred or prohibited the publication of such documents on any of the grounds mentioned in Art.19(2) – Insofar as the claim of privilege is concerned, on the very face of it, s.123 of the Evidence Act, 1872 relates to unpublished public records – A claim of immunity against disclosure under s.123 of the Evidence Act has to be essentially adjudged on the touchstone of public interest and to satisfy itself that public interest is not put to jeopardy by requiring disclosure, the Court may even inspect the document in question though the said power is to be sparingly exercised – Such an exercise, however, was not necessary in the instant case as the document(s) being in public domain and within the reach and knowledge of the entire citizenry, a practical and common sense approach lead to the obvious conclusion that it would be meaningless and an exercise in utter futility for the Court to refrain from reading and considering the said document or from shutting out its evidentiary worth and value – Preliminary objection questioning maintainability of review petitions is dismissed – The review petitions are to be adjudicated on their own merit by taking into account the relevance of the contents of the three documents appended to the review petition – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.123 – Constitution of India – Art.19(2).(Per Ranjan Gogoi, CJI) Evidence Act, 1872: s.123 – Claim for privilege, waiver of – Held: Claim for privilege under s.123 being based on public policy cannot be waived – The basis for the claim of privilege is and can only be public interest. (Per K.M. Joseph, J.) Press: Freedom of expression – The right of the Press in India is no higher than the right of the citizens under Art.19(1)(a) and is traced to the same provision – If freedom is enjoyed by the Press without a deep sense of responsibility, it can weaken democracy – Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a). (Per K.M. Joseph, J.) Jurisprudence: Crown privilege – Law in India and in England – Change introduced by the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Discussed – Under the law relating to privilege, there are two classes of documents which ordinarily form the basis of privilege – In the first category, the claim for privilege is raised on the basis of contents of the particular documents – The second head under which privilege is ordinarily claimed is in case of document which falls in a class of documents which entitles it to protection from disclosure and production – When a document falls in such a class, ordinarily courts are not required to consider the contents – When privilege was claimed as for instance in the matter relating to security of the nation, traditionally, courts both in England and in India have held that such documents would fall in the class of documents which entitles it to protection from production – Under s.8(1)(a), information, the disclosure of which will prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security and strategic scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or information leading to incitement of an offence are ordinarily exempt from the obligation of disclosure but even in respect of such matters, Parliament has advanced the law in the form of s.8(2) by giving recognition to the principle that disclosure of information could be refused only on the foundation of public interest being jeopardised – In other words, access to information is allowed in respect of matters falling even under s.8(1)(a), if case is made out under s.8(2) – Thus, the RTI Act through s.8(2) has conferred upon the citizens a priceless right by clothing them with the right to demand information even in respect of such matters as security of the country and matters relating to relation with foreign state – In such case, the applicant has to establish that withholding of such information produces greater harm than disclosing it – Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss.8(1)(a), 8(2). (Per K.M. Joseph, J.)