<p>The Supreme Court has done well to find an alternative to ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’, which it has strongly disapproved in many judgements, including in the latest one on TV channel MediaOne. Sealed cover jurisprudence refers to the practice of submitting information to the court in a sealed cover by parties to cases. Both the apex court and lower courts have received information, mainly from the government or its organisations, which is accessible only to the judges. Last month, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud refused to accept a sealed cover note by the Centre on its views on the payment of One Rank, One Pension arrears. The bench said that the practice should be stopped because it is “fundamentally contrary to the basic process of fair justice.” The CJI had also refused to accept a sealed cover submission by the government on the Hindenburg Research report on the Adani Group. Other benches have also red-flagged the practice in the past. </p>.<p>In the judgement in the MediaOne case this week, the court evolved a “less restrictive” procedure by which the “confidential” material submitted to it would be tested in a closed sitting and concerns of confidentiality balanced against the need for public confidence in the justice delivery system. An amicus curiae would manage the proceedings. Even if the need for confidentiality is accepted, the court might opt to redact only the confidential portions of the document or provide both parties with a summary of the documents. The procedure is worth a trial and it is for the court to ensure that it meets the ends of justice. Proposing it, the CJI again said that the “sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles of natural justice and open justice.”</p>.<p>Though the court had on some occasions in the past accepted important information in sealed covers, as in the Rafale case and the Bhima Koregaon case, and even asked for it in some cases, it has taken a strong position against the practice in recent times. The court rightly observed last year that “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” and would make “the process of adjudication vague and opaque”. Transparency is vital for the judicial process and it is essential to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Citizens have the right to know the reason for a verdict and how the court arrived at its decisions. Sealed cover submissions to the court must be seen as part of the general tendency of the government to shrink citizens’ right to information. Hopefully the new procedure will ensure that citizens’ rights are protected.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has done well to find an alternative to ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’, which it has strongly disapproved in many judgements, including in the latest one on TV channel MediaOne. Sealed cover jurisprudence refers to the practice of submitting information to the court in a sealed cover by parties to cases. Both the apex court and lower courts have received information, mainly from the government or its organisations, which is accessible only to the judges. Last month, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud refused to accept a sealed cover note by the Centre on its views on the payment of One Rank, One Pension arrears. The bench said that the practice should be stopped because it is “fundamentally contrary to the basic process of fair justice.” The CJI had also refused to accept a sealed cover submission by the government on the Hindenburg Research report on the Adani Group. Other benches have also red-flagged the practice in the past. </p>.<p>In the judgement in the MediaOne case this week, the court evolved a “less restrictive” procedure by which the “confidential” material submitted to it would be tested in a closed sitting and concerns of confidentiality balanced against the need for public confidence in the justice delivery system. An amicus curiae would manage the proceedings. Even if the need for confidentiality is accepted, the court might opt to redact only the confidential portions of the document or provide both parties with a summary of the documents. The procedure is worth a trial and it is for the court to ensure that it meets the ends of justice. Proposing it, the CJI again said that the “sealed cover proceedings infringe the principles of natural justice and open justice.”</p>.<p>Though the court had on some occasions in the past accepted important information in sealed covers, as in the Rafale case and the Bhima Koregaon case, and even asked for it in some cases, it has taken a strong position against the practice in recent times. The court rightly observed last year that “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” and would make “the process of adjudication vague and opaque”. Transparency is vital for the judicial process and it is essential to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Citizens have the right to know the reason for a verdict and how the court arrived at its decisions. Sealed cover submissions to the court must be seen as part of the general tendency of the government to shrink citizens’ right to information. Hopefully the new procedure will ensure that citizens’ rights are protected.</p>
