absence head of the department, to claim privilege, in other words immunity from disclosure of the unpublished official State documents in public interest. In a democracy, governed by rule of law State is treated on a par with a person by Article 19(6) in commercia1/industrial activities. It possessed of no special privileges. This Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain [(1975) 4 SCC 428, 443 : (1975) 3 SCR 333, 349] held that an objection claiming immunity should be raised by an affidavit affirmed by the head of the department. The court may also require a Minister to affirm an affidavit. They must state with precision the grounds or reasons in support of the public interest immunity. It is now settled law that the initial claim for public interest immunity to produce unpublished official records for short “State documents” should be made through an affidavit generally by the Minister concerned, in his absence by the Secretary of the department or head of the department. In the latter case the court may require an affidavit of the Minister himself to be filed. The affidavit should indicate that the documents in question have been carefully read and considered and the deponent has been satisfied, supported by reasons or grounds valid and germane, as to why it is apprehended that public interest would be injured by disclosure of the document summoned or called for. If the court finds the affidavit unsatisfactory a further opportunity may be given to file additional affidavit or he may be summoned for cross-examination. If the court is satisfied from the affidavit and the reasons assigned for withholding production or disclosure, the court may pass an appropriate order in that behalf. The court though would give its utmost consideration and deference to the view of the Minister, yet it is not conclusive. The claim for immunity should never be an administrative routine nor be a garb to avoid inconvenience, embarrassment or adverse to its defence in the action, the latter themselves a ground for disclosure. If the court still desires to peruse the record for satisfying itself whether the reasons assigned in the affidavit would justify withholding disclosure, the court would, in camera, examine the record and satisfy itself whether the public interest subserves
