Unveiling Justice: The Power Of Sealed Covers In The Judiciary

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• India’s Judiciary Take on “Sealed cover information” Procedure.
• The necessity to submit confidential information.
• Demerits of the sealed cover procedure.
• Infringement of the Right to Information of a party under the “sealed cover information” mechanism.

INTRODUCTION:

The Sealed Cover procedure is a mechanism used by the Indian judiciary to protect sensitive or confidential information that is relevant to a particular case. When the court requires such information, it may order the parties to submit it in a sealed cover, which is a sealed envelope or file that is not opened by anyone other than the court. The procedure is used in cases where the disclosure of the information would compromise national security, the privacy of an individual, or the integrity of an ongoing investigation. For example, in a criminal case, if the investigating agency submits evidence that contains sensitive information, it may be submitted in a sealed cover.

Once the information is submitted in a sealed cover, it is kept in the custody of the court and is not disclosed to any party, including the judge hearing the case, until the court deems it necessary to do so. The court may also appoint an amicus curiae (a person appointed by the court to assist in the proceedings) to examine the contents of the sealed cover and provide a report to the court.

It is typically employed in situations where the release of information could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, violate an individual's privacy, or both. Instances include material found in the police case diary. In order to safeguard the privacy of the parties concerned, sealed cover jurisprudence is also used in cases involving minors, sexual assault, and national security.

LEGISLATION FOR SEALED COVER PROCEDURE:

The Supreme Court and other courts also use the practice of requesting or accepting information from government organizations in sealed envelopes that are only accessible to judges. The doctrine of sealed cover is not specifically outlined in any legislation.

The Supreme Court's authority to exercise it comes from-

• No party should be permitted to access information that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or court has directed to be kept under sealed cover unless the CJI himself orders to access it, according to Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules.
• The Indian Evidence Act of 1872's Section 123.

TAKE OF JUDICIARY THROUGH RELEVANT CASES: 

The idea of exchanging pertinent information under sealed covers has been supported in a number of cases, including the dispute over the purchase of Rafale fighter jets which was quite a controversial. In 2018, when the center argued that such information was covered by the Official Secrets Act and confidentiality provisions in the contract, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi ordered the center to give details pertaining to the deal's decision-making and pricing in a sealed cover.

Similarly, the Supreme Court ordered to provide monthly reports under a sealed cover in the matter involving the National Registration of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. The Supreme Court based its decision in the Bhima Koregaon, Pune case, where activists were detained in accordance with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, on data provided by the Maharashtra police in a sealed cover. 

The "sealed cover practice must stop," according to the Chief Justice of India, as it is "fundamentally antithetical to the basic process of fair justice." While hearing the One Nation One Pension case in April, 2023. The CJI has also said: "I am personally averse to sealed covers. What happens is, we see something he does not see. And we decide on the case without showing it to him. This is fundamentally contrary to the judicial process. There cannot be secrecy in the Court. The Court has to be transparent."

The CJI previously stated that the Court wanted to maintain "full transparency" while presided over a three-judge bench hearing a number of petitions regarding the Hindenburg Research report and its aftermath. Further, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also wanted to submit the center's names for a committee of experts in a sealed cover.

In Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Union of India, 2023 [Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022] i.e. The MediaOne case decided to accept the government's submission of papers behind a sealed cover.

The Supreme Court stated that disclosure of papers to the accused is constitutionally required, even if the investigation is ongoing, in P Gopalakrishnan V. The State of Kerala, 2019.

The Delhi High Court was criticized by the Supreme Court in the INX Media case in 2019 for basing its decision to reject bail on the paperwork provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a sealed cover.

The Bench led by Hon’ble Justice N.V Ramana clarified in 2022 that it wanted all arguments to be made in open court in a case involving the Bihar government.

These landmark judgments demonstrate the instances of the Sealed Cover procedure in protecting sensitive information while ensuring that justice is served. However, it is also important to ensure that the procedure is not misused and does not violate the principles of natural justice or the right to a fair trial.

POSSIBLE DEMERITS OF THIS PROCEDURE:

• Lack of transparency: Since the evidence is kept confidential and not shared with the parties involved in a case, it can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability in the judicial process.
• Limited scrutiny: When evidence is presented in a sealed cover, it cannot be subject to cross-examination or scrutiny by the parties involved in the case, which can compromise the fairness of the judicial process.
• Possible misuse: The sealed cover procedure can also be misused by those in power to withhold information or evidence that may be damaging to their case, or to hide their wrongdoing.
• Impact on due process: In some cases, the use of sealed covers may violate the principles of natural justice and due process, as it can prevent parties from presenting their case effectively or obtaining a fair hearing.
• Risk of errors: There is also a risk that the judge or designated authority may misinterpret the evidence presented in a sealed cover, leading to errors or unjust decisions.

CONCLUSION:

The CJI also described how, in a previous case before the Supreme Court, the then-Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal, handled sensitive government documents relating to cross-border national security. Rather than placing them in a sealed cover, Venugopal sent his junior with the documents to the office of the opposing counsel so that he could review them in order for the latter to better assist the court.

We frequently recognize that knowledge is becoming vital to our society in many different ways. Information is priceless and can be utilized either for one person's benefit or at another's expense. In such situations, it goes without saying that the other party stands to be at a great disadvantage as it can be considered to be shooting in the dark if the identical material is only provided to one of the parties before the courts. In the long run, a guarantee of public access to government information is essential for any democracy because if authorities only make public the information they want citizens to know, then publicity is reduced to a charade, and accountability is rendered meaningless.

Potter Stewart has rightly said that "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." It is crucial to note that, despite the Supreme Court of India's right to accept information under seal, doing so would violate the party’s right to information on that data. The accused is not permitted to view any allegations made against them.

The Sealed Cover procedure is an important tool for the judiciary to ensure that sensitive information is protected while also ensuring that justice is served. However, it is important to note that the procedure should be used only in exceptional circumstances and should not be used to bypass the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial.