In England, the crown has the special the privilege to withhold from producing and showcasing a document before the court in the case the disclosure thereof is likely to jeopardize the public interest. In Duncon V Armmel Lair Co. Ltd. 'The court held that the crown is the sole judge to decide whether a document is a privileged one and the court cannot review the decision of the crown.' However, this decision has been overruled in the landmark case of Conway V Rimmer. In this case, the court held that it is not an absolute privilege of the crown to decide whether a document is a privileged one. The court can see it and decide whether it is a privileged one or not. In India, Section 124 provides' that no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affair of State except with the permission of the officer at head thinks fit.' The court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document. It refers to the details of the state or takes other evidence to enable it to determine its admissibility. If for such purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated the court may, it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the direction. "He shall be held to have committed an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 162 shall not apply to the official documents but also private documents." Other cases on the same lines where State of Punjab V Sodi Sukdev Singh, Amar Chand V Union of India and Indira Nehru Gandhi V Raj Narain. In yet another famous case of S P Gupta V Union of India Justice Bhagwati took some such view above case when he expressed his faith in the ideal of the open government. The court has assumed the power of inspection of documents in camera and it finds that its disclosure would harm the public interest. It also claimed for non-disclosure might be upheld.