Section 129

This rule comes from the British-era Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 123), and was carried forward largely unchanged into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as Section 129. It reflects the idea that some government records, such as those touching national security, diplomacy, or internal deliberations, may need to stay confidential for the public good. The law tries to balance two competing interests: a fair trial's need for evidence, and the state's need to protect sensitive information from becoming public through litigation.

Early on, in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (1961), the Supreme Court treated the department head's decision to withhold documents as largely final, giving the executive wide discretion. This changed significantly in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Supreme Court held that a claim of privilege under this provision is not the last word — courts can examine the documents privately (in camera) to decide whether the public interest in keeping them secret truly outweighs the public interest in disclosure for justice. This approach was reaffirmed in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982), which held that blanket claims of privilege over classes of documents are not acceptable and that courts have the power to review and, if needed, override an unjustified refusal to disclose.

• Myth: The officer's decision to withhold documents under this section is completely final and can never be questioned.
  Fact: Courts, notably in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), have held that judges can review such claims and even inspect the documents privately to ensure the refusal is genuinely justified and not misused to hide misconduct.
• Myth: This provision lets the government hide any document just by calling it an 'affair of State.'
  Fact: Courts require that the claim relate to genuine matters of state interest (like security or diplomacy), and blanket or vague claims over entire categories of documents have been disapproved by the Supreme Court.