On sealed cover jurisprudence

Source: The post is based on the article “On sealed cover jurisprudence” published in “The Hindu” on 18th February 2023. 

Syllabus: GS2- Judiciary 

Relevance: Issues related to the transparent process of justice 

News: The Chief Justice of India firmly refused the ‘suggestions’ offered by the government in a sealed cover on the formation of a proposed committee to enquire into the Hindenburg report on the Adani Group. 

What are the issues related to the practice of routine handing over of sealed covers by the government? 

It erodes public confidence in the ‘open court’ principle of justice administration.  

The petitioners are unable to defend themselves. They do not know what they are supposed to defend against.  

Passing on materials in a sealed cover to the court compels judges to accept the state’s version, that too, in cases in which the government’s narrative is under challenge. 

What are the historical facts related to this practice? 

The origins of sealed cover jurisprudence can be traced to service or administrative cases. Official service records and promotion assessments of individual personnel were received in a sealed cover in order to avoid harm to the reputation of officers.  

The court continues to receive confidential documents in sexual assault cases to protect the identity of survivors. However, recently there has been a rise in the incidence of the government providing documents in a sealed cover. 

Sealed cover documents have been received by the apex court in cases such as the Rafale jets’ purchase deal, the Assam National Register of Citizens case, the Ayodhya title dispute, the Gujarat Police ‘fake’ encounter case, the electoral bonds case, and Bhima Koregaon case.  

What are the rules associated with this practice? 

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that the Chief Justice can direct any document to be kept confidential in a sealed cover if publication of the records is “considered to be not in the interest of the public”.  

Section 123 of the Evidence Act of 1872 provides that the government should give a prior permission to a person who wants to give evidence “derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of state”. 

How the Supreme Court is now witnessing a turnaround? 

The SC, in the Media One telecast ban case, observed that the government should explain the exceptional circumstances to keep documents secret from the other party. The court has made it clear that sealed covers could be used only in a “small exception” of cases. 

In the S.P. Velumani case, 2022; the Supreme Court criticised the Madras High Court’s decision to permit a report to remain “shrouded in a sealed cover” when the State had not even claimed any specific privilege.  

The court admonished the Bihar government for attempting to give information in a sealed cover in the Muzaffarpur shelter case. 

In the Pegasus case judgement, SC underscored that the government must prove the facts that the information sought would affect national security concerns. The state cannot get a free pass every time the issue of ‘national security’ is raised.