SC’s aversion to sealed covers comes after years of accepting them

Govt. has often justified the measure citing national security or to safeguard sanctity of ongoing probe

The Supreme Court’s recent expression of aversion to “sealed covers” comes after years of receiving documents and materials in sealed covers from the government.

Sealed covers have been entertained by the court in a range of cases, including ones involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, anticipatory bail, etc.

The court had entertained sealed covers from the government in a flurry of important cases, including in public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the Rafale jets purchase, the Bhima Koregaon case, the Assam’s National Register of Citizens, Board of Control for Cricket in India and the anticipatory bail plea for former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram.

“Sealed cover jurisprudence”, as the top court calls it, precludes the other party from knowing the content of what the government hands over to the court. The government has often justified this in the name of national security or even as a measure to safeguard the sanctity of an ongoing investigation. Questions of fair hearing and principles of natural justice have been raised against sealed covers.

However, the government’s move to submit documents in a sealed cover met with resistance in the Anuradha Bhasin case in January 2020. The case concerned restrictions imposed on the rights of citizens and the Press in Jammu and Kashmir in the name of national security, following the removal of Article 370. In this case, the apex court said the government had to file an affidavit specifying reasons for claiming the “privilege” if it did not want to give copies of the restrictive orders to the petitioners.

“It is not our forte to answer whether it is better to be free than secure or be secure rather than free. However, we are here only to ensure that citizens are provided all the rights and liberty to the highest extent in a given situation while ensuring security at the same time,” an apex court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana observed.