Different facets of sealed cover jurisprudence within the Indian legal

Abstract
The idea of this research paper is to dissect the different aspects of sealed cover jurisprudence
within the Indian judicial system. Sealed cover jurisprudence involves the donation of
sensitive or non-public information to the court in a sealed envelope, accessible only to the
presiding judge. Despite the absence of a specific legal frame for sealed cover jurisprudence,
the Supreme Court derives its authority to employ it from Rule 7 of Order XIII of the
Supreme Court Rules 2013 and Section 123 of the IEA, 1872. The objectification of
particular or non-public data in sealed covers raises enterprises about implicit contraventions
on individualities' sequestration or breaches of trust. The application of sealed cover justice
may also impact the right to a fair trial, as parties may be deprived of access to pivotal
substantiation or arguments considered in the decision-making process. Accordingly, this
exploration lawyers for the addition of parties within the dimension of sealed cover justice
and the establishment of specific laws guiding its use. These laws would give the court clear
directives on employing sealed cover justice in select cases to ensure a fair trial and uphold
the principles of natural justice. In conclusion, the exploration emphasizes the need for
nonsupervisory measures governing sealed cover justice, prompting a careful balance
between its use and the foundational principles of due process, fair trial, and open justice.

Introduction

The research paper critically analyses the practice of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence (SCJ) in
Indian Courts and suggests effective amendments to the rules and laws that govern this
practice, so that it does not hinder the concept of fair trial and natural justice, it also throws
light on the limitations of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence (SCJ) in terms of fair trial,
transparency, and inclusion of concerned parties. It also suggests effective measures and
changes to the practice of sealed cover, so that concerned parties can get a fair chance to
respond to the pieces of evidence against the parties.

Origin and historical background

Sealed cover Jurisprudence in Indian courts has an analogous origin and literal background to
that in the United States. The practice of sealing court records can be traced back to the
British social period when courts would frequently seal the orders or records dealing with
sensitive

matters such as public security or public order. The honourable Supreme Court of India
continued to use the practice of sealed cover jurisprudence after independence, but it wasn't
until the 1990s that it became more current. This was due in part to the rise of terrorism and
other security pitfalls, as well as the added complexity of cases involving profitable crimes
and plutocrat laundering. The Supreme Court has justified the use of sealed cover justice
because it is necessary to cover sensitive information and to save the integrity of the judicial
process. still, the practice has also been blamed for its lack of translucency and responsibility

Conceptual background

Sealed Cover Jurisprudence is a legal concept of submitting and presenting confidential

information or sensitive reports to the courts in sealed covers, which are to be opened, read,
and reviewed by the judges only. The handing over of the sealed covers to the courts by the
state, of which the contents are unknown to the parties of the case, often fighting for life and
personal liberty, is eroding public confidence in the ‘open court’ principle of administration
and justice. The petitioners, unaware of the facts mentioned in the sealed cover, are unable to
defend the verdicts made by the courts. In Vishal Tiwari vs the Union of India 2023 (Adani-
Hindenburg issue), the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud, refused to accept the
suggestions put forward by the government in sealed covers for the formation of a proposed
committee to enquire into the report of Hindenburg on the Adani Group. This indicates the
Supreme Court’s acute awareness relating to how sealed cover jurisprudence has begun to
threaten the very credibility of the judicial institution. The practice of sealed covers lacks
transparency in Indian courts, as the evidence(s) or argument(s) presented in the sealed cover
is not available to the public or other parties, and therefore, it goes against the principle of
fair trial and adjudication. Hence, the proposal must be made to include the concerned parties
under the Sealed Cover Jurisprudence in certain cases to maintain accountability in the courts
and to ensure that the right to have a fair trial for the parties concerned can be effectively
practiced.

Legal framework

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The Constitution of India (Part III - Fundamental Rights)

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

"No person shall be deprived of their life and personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law."

Personal liberty encompasses the fundamental right and freedom of individuals to make
choices and decisions about their lives without unjust interference or restrictions from the
government or others. It upholds the principle of 'fair justice,' including the right to a fair
trial. This right encompasses the entitlement to be heard, the right to legal representation, and
the right to a fair trial by an impartial and independent court or tribunal. The Supreme Court
(SC) of India has interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a fair trial as an integral part of
the right to life and personal liberty. The practice of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence involves not
disclosing the contents of a sealed envelope to the concerned parties, thereby violating the
fundamental right to a fair trial and adjudication. Refusal to reveal the contents under the
sealed cover naturally infringes upon Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice of
India (CJI) Chandrachud asserts that akin to a substantive violation of Article 21, the breach
of constitutional procedural rights must also be adjudicated based on the proportionality
standard.

2. PROCEDURAL LAWS

The Indian Evidence Act (Act No. 1 of 1872)

(I) Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Evidence as to affairs of State

Provisions under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, safeguard information
about state matters by prohibiting the presentation of evidence derived from unpublished
official records related to affairs of the State without the permission of the head of the
concerned department. This protective measure is crucial to maintaining national security and
the seamless functioning of government bodies. However, the practice of Sealed Cover
Jurisprudence, where courts receive sealed envelopes containing sensitive information that is
exclusively reviewed by the judge, raises concerns about transparency in court proceedings.
To address this, amendments should be considered to allow the involvement of concerned
parties in specific cases, ensuring fair trial procedures and equitable adjudication. Such
participation would enable petitioners to engage in a meaningful critique of arguments before
the court, upholding the principles of fair justice.

(II) Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Official communications

Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, protects public officers from being
compelled to disclose communications received in official confidence, particularly when the
disclosure could harm public interests. Aligned with the principles of Sealed Cover
Jurisprudence, this provision acknowledges the importance of preserving sensitive
information that, if disclosed, may compromise public morality or interests. The case of
Mantubhai Mehta highlights the court's responsibility to ascertain whether a document
constitutes a communication made to a public officer in official confidence. If the document
does not pertain to affairs of the State, it may be treated as advice. This legal framework
seeks to balance the imperative of maintaining confidentiality with the need for
accountability in the interest of public welfare

Case laws

1] P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement (2019) (Criminal Appeal no

1831/2019)1

A Full Bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A. S. Bopanna, and Justice

Hrishikesh Roy, in a notable case, criticized the Delhi High Court's decision to deny bail to a
former Union Minister. The Supreme Court raised concerns about the Delhi High Court
relying on documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under sealed cover.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to grant bail should be exercised based on
established principles, considering factors such as the nature of the accusation, potential
severity of punishment upon conviction, materials presented by the prosecution, risk of
witness tampering or threats, likelihood of the accused's presence at trial, the character of the
accused, and other relevant circumstances (as outlined in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT,
Delhi). The Court highlighted that there is no rigid rule for granting or denying bail, and each
case should be assessed on its own merits. The Supreme Court expressed concern that the use
of documents under sealed cover in the Delhi High Court violated the appellant/petitioner's
1
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, Cr Appeal no 1831, SC FB 04 Dec 2019
fundamental rights, questioning the principles of fair justice under the jury system. The
contention arose from the fact that the documents submitted by the ED were inaccessible to
the opposing party, resulting in a lack of access to their contents and preventing the
presentation of arguments during the trial.

2] Romila Thapar vs the Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 260 of 20182

Full Bench: CJI Dipak Mishra (then), A. M. Khanwilakar, D. Y. Chandrachud

In the Bhima Koregaon Case, also known as the "Unwanted Actions Prevention Act, 1967"
case, a writ petition sought the arrest of human rights activists by the Maharashtra State
Police, alleging connections with the terrorist organization Communist Party of India
(Maoist). The petition aimed at securing the release of the accused and establishing a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) for further inquiry. The three-judge bench, consisting of CJI Dipak
Mishra (then), A. M. Khanwilakar, and D. Y. Chandrachud, delivered a divided verdict.
Respondents contended that the petitioners were not involved in the arrests and, therefore,
had no standing to challenge them. Pune police, in a counter affidavit, claimed to have found
materials on the accused's electronic devices detailing a plot to assassinate the Prime Minister
of India. The petitioners, however, argued that this was a false narrative to manipulate public
opinion. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, representing CJI Dipak Mishra and himself, delivered the
majority opinion, permitting the Pune police to continue their investigation within the bounds
of the law. He emphasized that the accused had adopted the writ petitions as their own, thus
becoming parties to the petition. Justice Chandrachud, in his dissenting view, raised concerns
about the Pune Police's conduct, particularly their engagement with the media during the
ongoing investigation. He believed that selective disclosure by the police created a public
bias against the accused, questioning the impartiality of the investigation and advocating for
the need for an SIT. The case involved sensitive evidence retrieved from the accused, and
placed under sealed covers to prevent any impact on public morality. While non-disclosure of
such documents might introduce ambiguity in judicial proceedings, contravening the
principles of natural justice and fair representation, the conventional practice of admitting
evidence in sealed covers by government agencies, accessible only to judges, is justified in
the interest of preserving the confidentiality of information. It is argued that in such cases,

2
Romila Thapar vs UOI, Cr No 260 SC FB of 2018
evidence should be disclosed not to the general public but to the concerned parties involved
in the petition.

3] Anuradha Bhasin vs the Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 20193

Divisional Bench: N.V. Ramana, V. Ramasubramanian

The case under consideration revolves around the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of
citizens and the press in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, ostensibly in the interest of
national security and morality, after the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
In response, the Supreme Court mandated that the government must submit an affidavit
outlining reasons for claiming "privilege" if it chooses not to provide copies of the restrictive
orders to the petitioners. The Court expressed its role as ensuring that citizens are afforded
their rights and liberties to the maximum extent possible within the context of ensuring
security.

This case played a pivotal role in shaping the policy for Sealed Cover Jurisprudence in the
Indian jury system. The Supreme Court established guidelines for the use of sealed covers,
emphasizing certain key points. First, the government is obligated to disclose the reasons
behind its decision to seal information to the court. Second, the court is tasked with
determining the validity of the government's reasons. If the court deems the government's
rationale justifiable, it is then entrusted with sealing the information to maintain
confidentiality. Additionally, the court must grant the involved parties an opportunity to
respond to the sealed information. Despite these guidelines, the utilization of sealed covers
remains a source of controversy within the jury system. Adhering to the outlined principles
would not only ensure transparency in judicial proceedings but also afford petitioners a fair
chance to present their arguments and defend their positions.

3
Anuradha Bhasin vs UOI Civil No 1031SC DB 2020
Social outcome

A] Positive Aspects of Including Concerned Parties in Sealed Cover Jurisprudence

The involvement of concerned parties in Sealed Cover Jurisprudence in Indian courts could
yield several positive social outcomes, including:

1. Enhanced Public Scrutiny of the Judiciary:

Allowing concerned parties to participate in Sealed Cover Jurisprudence proceedings may

result in increased public scrutiny of the judiciary. This development could contribute
positively by ensuring transparency and accountability within the judiciary. However, it may
also exert additional pressure on judges to exercise their independent powers judiciously,
albeit potentially expediting judicial trials.

2. Increased Public Awareness of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence:

Incorporating concerned parties into the sealed cover jurisprudence process can raise public
awareness about this legal practice. This heightened awareness may shed light on potential
issues associated with sealed covers, garnering public support for necessary reforms.

3. Fostering Trust Between the Judiciary and the Public:

The participation of concerned parties in sealed cover jurisprudence can enhance

transparency in judicial proceedings, fostering trust between petitioners and the judiciary.
Such inclusion ensures the fair participation of concerned parties and aligns with the
principles of fair justice. This positive development can bolster the legitimacy of the
judiciary, making it more effective in upholding the rule of law.

B] Negative Aspects of Including Concerned Parties in Sealed Cover Jurisprudence

However, there are potential risks associated with involving concerned parties in the Sealed
Cover Jurisprudence process, including:

1. Increased Intimidation of Witnesses and Victims:

Granting concerned parties access to confidential information may heighten intimidation

among witnesses and victims. Nonetheless, disclosing evidence under sealed cover
jurisprudence can facilitate a speedy trial and ensure fair justice, with such evidence serving
as primary evidence in a court of law.

2. Heightened Risk of Confidential Information Leakage:

The inclusion of concerned parties in sealed cover proceedings poses the risk of confidential
and sensitive government information being leaked. To address this, it is suggested that
concerned parties be included only in specific cases, with disclosure limited to essential
contents necessary for the judgment. Balancing the aforementioned negative aspects with the
principles of fair justice and public morality is essential to achieving equitable adjudication.

Critical Analysis

Sealed Cover Jurisprudence is a courtroom practice that excludes the involvement of

concerned parties in presenting facts and evidence before the Chief Justice or the court.
Information is submitted in a sealed envelope, and the contents are withheld from both
parties, the public, and the media. This approach creates challenges for the responding party
in mounting a defence, as they lack awareness of the arguments they need to counter. The
communication is essentially one-way between the Judges and the government,
overshadowing transparency, accountability, natural justice, and the right to a fair trial. In
recent times, the Supreme Court has discouraged the use of Sealed Cover Jurisprudence.
While adjudicating various cases, the Supreme Court of India has rejected submissions of
facts and evidence in sealed covers. The Court holds the view that such a practice undermines
the principles of transparency, accountability, the right to a fair trial, and natural justice. This
practice finds legitimacy in the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. This research advocates for
informing concerned parties about the facts and evidence submitted in sealed envelopes to the
Chief Justice or the Court. This approach aims to empower parties to defend themselves by
presenting counterarguments and exercising their right to a fair trial.

Conclusion

The research presented concludes by advocating for the regulation of laws governing sealed
cover jurisprudence. It proposes the modification and amendment of existing laws and rules
to incorporate concerned parties under sealed covers, aiming to ensure a fair trial and
adjudication process.

References

1]https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-courts-changing-attitude-towards-sealed-cover-
procedure-224310

2] https://main.sci.gov.in/

3] https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/the-practice-of-sealed-cover-jurisprudence