Context: In the recent channel ban case, the Supreme Court has criticised the practise of relying on "sealed covers” to adjudicate issues.
About sealed cover jurisprudence

• It is a practice used by the Supreme Court and sometimes lower courts, of accepting information from government agencies in sealed envelopes that can only be accessed by judges.
• This is usually done on the ground that the contents are highly sensitive in nature, and may injure even national security or "public order".
• There is no specific law to define the doctrine of sealed cover.

Provision of Sealed cover Jurisprudence: Supreme Court derives its power from:
Rule 7 of order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules

• It states that: if the Chief Justice or court directs certain information to be kept under sealed cover or considers it of confidential nature, no party would be allowed access to the contents of such information, except if the Chief Justice himself orders that the opposite party be allowed to access it.
• It also mentions that information can be kept confidential if its publication is not considered to be in the interest of the public.

Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

• It states that: official unpublished documents relating to state affairs are protected and a public officer cannot be compelled to disclose such documents.

Landmark Judgements based on sealed cover

• In the Bhima Koregaon case, in which 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.
• The Supreme Court asked the coordinator of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to submit periodic reports in a sealed cover.

Others: BCCI reforms case, coal scam case etc.
Criticism

• It is against the principles of transparency and accountability of the Indian justice system
• Basing the verdict on sealed or secret documents is against the basic principles of natural justice.
• It is the fundamental right of the petitioner to know the evidence alleged against the person.
• Petitioners are crippled in mounting a defence, not knowing what they are supposed to defend against.
• It will increase the arbitrariness of court decisions.
• The judges are not to lay down the reasons for their judgments in the case of confidential information cases.
• The provisions of in-camera hearings provide sufficient protection to sensitive information.

Landmark Case:

• In the INX Media case in 2019, while granting bail to Congress leader P. Chidambaram, a Bench of the Supreme Court had criticised the Delhi High Court for basing its decision to deny bail to the former union minister on documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a sealed cover.
• In the 2019 judgment in the case of P Gopalakrishnan V. The State of Kerala, the Supreme Court had said that disclosure of documents to the accused is constitutionally mandated.
• This is possible even if the investigation is ongoing and said documents may lead to breakthroughs in the investigation.

By: Shubham Tiwari