What is Sealed Cover Jurisprudence? What is the Legality of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence? What are the issues with the Sealed Cover Jurisprudence? How Sealed cover jurisprudence is used by Courts in India? What are the Criticisms/Issues with Sealed Cover Jurisprudence? Read further to know more.
The government and its agencies often file reports in sealed envelopes in court without disclosing the contents to the opposite party. Typically, this is done under the justification that the information is extremely sensitive and could jeopardise public safety or even national security.
State authorities also use the fact that the revelation might have an impact on ongoing investigations as their justification. The origins of the practice can be traced to the administrative system.
To protect the reputation of the officers, official service records and promotion assessments of specific people were delivered in a sealed cover.
What is Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?
- The Supreme Court and occasionally lesser courts use the practice of requesting or accepting information from government organisations in sealed envelopes that are only accessible by judges.
- If the Chief Justice or a court decides that the information should be kept confidential or under seal, no party will be permitted access to its contents.
- It is often only employed in one of two circumstances: disclosing private or secret information or ongoing investigations that are part of the police diary.
- The fundamental principle in both of these situations is identical: the court procedure must not endanger the inquiry or harm a party by disclosing facts.
- The theory of sealed cover is not specifically defined by law. Still, the Supreme Court has the authority to apply it thanks to Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules.
Legality of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
The doctrine of sealed cover is not defined by any specific law.
Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules:
- According to the aforementioned rule, no party shall be permitted access to the contents of any information if the Chief Justice or court instructs that it be kept under sealed cover or deems it to be confidential.
- Exceptions include situations in which the Chief Justice personally directs that the opposing party be granted access.
- Additionally, it states that material may be kept private if the public is not thought to benefit from its disclosure.
Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872:
- This act protects official, unpublished papers about state business and prohibits public officials from being forced to reveal them.
- Additional situations in which information may be sought in confidence or secrecy include those in which its disclosure may jeopardise an ongoing investigation, such as when it pertains to material included in a police case diary.
Other instances:
- If the disclosure of information jeopardises an ongoing investigation or invades a person’s privacy, secrecy or confidence may be requested.
Also read: Procedure Established by Law vs Due Process of Law
What are the issues with the Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?
Only a limited subset of public agency actions must be kept secret in a democracy. Such actions not only keep the public in the dark, but they also have an impact on how democracy makes general policy decisions or manages the welfare state.
Against the Principles of Transparency and Accountability:
- It is unfavourable to the Indian justice system’s guiding principles of openness and accountability since it opposes the concept of an open court where decisions can be made in front of the public.
- Evidence “must be shared with both parties to the dispute in any adjudication process, especially one that includes fundamental rights,” according to the law.
Reduce the Scope of Reasoning:
- To increase the potential for arbitrariness in court rulings since judges are required to justify their judgements, which is impossible when those judgements are based on sensitive information.
- Further debate is whether the state should be given the right to submit information in secret when previously existing protections, such as closed-door hearings, are adequate for sensitive data.
Obstruction to Fair Trial and Adjudication:
- It is also argued that not providing access to such documents to the accused parties obstructs their passage to a fair trial and adjudication.
Arbitrary in Nature:
- Instead of being a standard procedure, sealed covers depend on the individual judges’ need to support a position in a given case.
- This renders the exercise haphazard and random.
Criticisms/Issues with Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
There are several criticisms raised against sealed cover jurisprudence.
Arbitrariness in Judgements:
- Due to the inability of judges to justify their conclusions when they are based on sensitive information, sealed envelopes increase the potential for arbitrariness in court judgements.
Sufficient protection already available:
- Because current protections like in-camera hearings already provide appropriate security to sensitive information, the state shouldn’t be given the prerogative to submit information in secrecy.
Principle of natural justice:
- The parties to a lawsuit must be given a fair opportunity to review the evidence, according to the principles of natural justice.
- Denying the accused parties access to such papers prevents them from receiving a fair trial and ruling.
Transparency:
- One of the things that give the judiciary institution its legitimacy is transparency, which is severely constrained by this process.
Right to know:
- The justifications for court decisions must be made public so that the public can scrutinise them.
- Citizens cannot have this taken away from them by the Supreme Court’s Guardians of Basic Rights.
Also read: Must Know Articles of Indian Constitution
Use of Sealed cover jurisprudence by Courts in India
In this section, we list a few prominent cases where sealed-over jurisprudence was employed.
- 2014 BCCI reforms case: In this case, the cricket body’s probe committee filed its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed envelope, requesting that the names of nine cricketers suspected of the match and spot-fixing not be made public.
- Bhima Koregaon case: In this case, activists were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The Supreme Court had relied on information submitted by the Maharashtra police in a sealed cover.
- Rafale fighter jet deal: In this case, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to submit details in a sealed cover as the Centre had contended that the details related to the Rafale deal were subject to the Official Secrets Act and secrecy clauses in the agreement.
- National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam: The Supreme Court mandated the coordinator of the NRC to submit periodic reports in a sealed cover, which could neither be accessed by the government nor the petitioners.
Are there any judgments dealing with Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?
Yes, there are. Following are some of the judgements made by the Supreme court and various high courts about sealed cover jurisprudence.
- In P Gopalakrishnan V. The State of Kerala, 2019, the Supreme Court had said that disclosure of documents to the accused is constitutionally mandated, even if the investigation is ongoing.
- In the INX Media case in 2019, the Supreme Court criticised the Delhi High Court for basing its decision to deny bail on documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a sealed cover.
- In 2022, in a case involving the Bihar government, the Bench headed by Justice Ramana made it clear that it wanted all arguments to be presented in open court.
- On hearing an appeal against the Centre’s ban in the MediaOne case, the SC said that it is not in favor of sealed cover jurisprudence.
Critical Analysis of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
On analyzing it deeply, we can identify both, arguments in favor of and arguments against sealed cover jurisprudence.
Arguments in favor Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
- The authority of our Supreme Court has been expanded to include the capability of receiving case data in sealed envelopes.
- This is done in extremely sensitive situations like defence deals or cases involving policies that would have a big influence on the economy of the nation.
- For reasons of national security, sealed envelopes take on a key role in these circumstances and must always be used.
- Even in private cases, courts have in-camera procedures. This is so that incidents concerning people’s private life are not permitted in court records.
- The sealed cover doctrine is sometimes required because of this.
Arguments Against Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
- Against the principle of an open court: The sealed cover orders fundamentally go against the cardinal principle of an open court and militate against the Supreme Court’s function of public reasoning.
- Against principles of natural justice: They violate the principles of natural justice as well, preventing parties from having a full appreciation of the facts of the case. It is not favourable to the principles of transparency and accountability of the Indian justice system.
- Against the Right to Know: The doctrine of sealed cover goes against the citizens’ “right to know”. It excludes the public from crucial issues that impact their lives directly or indirectly.
- Reasoning not given by Supreme Court: The court orders provide no justifications for using sealed cover practice. There isn’t even a verbal commitment to assess if the public interest is better served by the disclosure of truth.
- It manipulates the final decision: It vitiates the decision-making process and affects the outcome. Sealed covers have been allowed in cases where facts presented by the state needed to be debated and examined to settle the question of law.
- Violation of SC judgment: It is argued that not providing access to such documents to the accused parties obstructs their passage to a fair trial and adjudication. In the 2019 judgment in the case of P Gopalakrishnan V. The State of Kerala, the Supreme Court said that disclosure of documents to the accused is constitutionally mandated.
Way Ahead
- Tribunals must make sure that opposing parties are given a fair chance to state their case and refute any supporting data or arguments.
- The constitutional values of due process, a fair trial, and open justice must be balanced with the practice of sealed cover jurisprudence, which also needs to be justified in light of the particulars of the case.
- In matters involving national security, the Supreme Court has recommended an alternative to habitually filing documents in sealed covers.
- The judicial review procedure is important because it holds the executive responsible.
- Particularly when fundamental rights like the right to free speech are restricted, the executive branch must persuasively defend its actions.
- The executive branch is not given carte blanche by the Indian Constitution to issue arbitrary orders that violate these rights.
- A court that watches any presidential action with quiet complacency is a crude example of democratic disintegration.
- The court must consider the action’s legality in light of proportionality when it is claimed that it has restricted basic rights.
Conclusion
- There is currently uncertainty in the law about sealed covers.
- While confidentiality is required in some situations, it must be proven to be necessary.
- In addition to maintaining the public’s confidence in the court’s decision-making and imposing checks and balances on the court’s power, this would give sealed cover jurisprudence constitutional legitimacy.
Article written by Aseem Muhammed
Leave a Reply