This article critically examines the Sealed Cover Proceedings and the Public Interest Immunity Claims Proceedings, following the recent judicial ruling by the Supreme Court of India on these courtroom procedures. The apex court’s observations and alternative measures have drawn both attention and debate in legal circles.
Understanding Sealed Cover Proceedings
Sealed cover proceedings are a special courtroom process that is typically employed in cases involving sensitive or confidential information. This could range from national security matters to cases where the disclosure of evidence could violate the privacy of involved individuals. In such instances, the evidence or documents are given to the court in a sealed envelope. Only the judge and a specially designated court officer are permitted to peruse the contents of this sealed envelope. The litigating parties may not view the contents of the sealed cover, and the court bases its verdict solely on the information stored within the sealed cover.
The motive behind such proceedings is to balance the need for transparency in the judicial process with the requirement to safeguard sensitive information and protect personal privacy. However, critics argue that the usage of sealed cover proceedings can undermine constitutional rights and procedural guarantees of a fair hearing under the law.
Public Interest Immunity Claims Proceeding Explained
In response to these issues, the apex court has developed an alternative pathway, justly termed the “less restrictive” Public Interest Immunity (PII) claims proceedings. This procedure will take place in a “closed sitting”, but a reasoned order permitting or dismissing the PII claim of the state should be declared in open court.
In this context, the role of Amicus Curiae becomes paramount. Translated as ‘friend of the court’, the amicus curiae acts as a bridge between the parties involved in public interest immunity claims. Appointed by the court, the amicus is granted access to the material that the state seeks to withhold.
There is, however, a key drawback to this process. Article 145 of the Indian Constitution commands that all judgments of the Supreme Court be delivered in open court. The idea of closed sitting proceedings as per PII may contravene this constitutional mandate.
Supreme Court’s Response
The Supreme Court acknowledged that while public interest immunity proceedings occur within a closed setting, there is an obligation to pass a reasoned order for allowing or dismissing the claim in open court. Although PII claims do affect the principles of natural justice, sealed cover proceedings infringe not only on the principles of natural justice but also on the principles of open justice.
A Look at Previous Supreme Court Observations
Several previous instances reflect the Supreme Court’s stance on sealed cover proceedings. In the P. Gopalakrishnan vs The State of Kerala case (2019), the court held that disclosure of documents to the accused is constitutionally mandated, irrespective of the ongoing nature of the investigation.
In the INX Media case (2019), the apex court criticized the Delhi High Court for denying bail to a former Union Minister based on documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a sealed cover. This action was deemed contrary to the concept of a fair trial.
In Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court opined, “the non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed cover to the adjudicating authority…sets a dangerous precedent.”
These observations serve as a testament to the Supreme Court’s commitment to uphold the principles of natural justice and enhance the transparency of legal procedures.
