The Delhi High Court has ruled that evidence in Official Secrets Act cases can be recorded online via video conferencing, affirming that secrecy and technology can coexist through in-camera proceedings and strict security protocols ensuring confidentiality.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that evidence in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) can be validly recorded through video conferencing, provided that secrecy is preserved through in-camera proceedings and strict handling protocols.
The judgment came in response to a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), challenging a Special Judge’s refusal to allow the examination of a key witness through virtual means in a sensitive case concerning alleged transmission of classified defence information.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a 2012 FIR registered under the Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The FIR alleged that confidential defence-related documents were unlawfully communicated to unauthorized individuals.
After extensive investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets before the trial court. One of the material witnesses, residing in the United States, expressed his inability to travel to India due to old age and medical constraints. Consequently, the CBI requested permission to record his evidence via video conferencing from the Indian Consulate in New York.
However, the Special Judge rejected the plea, citing concerns that classified documents would need to be transmitted abroad, potentially violating secrecy provisions under the OSA. The court also observed that the accused’s consent, as required under Rule 5.3.11 of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, was not obtained.
Delhi High Court’s Observations
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula examined the issue in detail and emphasized that there is no statutory prohibition under the Official Secrets Act against recording evidence through video conferencing.
Justice Narula noted that so long as secrecy is ensured through in-camera hearings and secure document handling protocols, virtual examination does not compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
The Court observed:
“There is, in any event, no statutory prohibition under OSA against recording evidence through video conferencing, particularly where secrecy is preserved through in-camera proceedings and controlled handling protocols.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), which recognized that recording of evidence via video conferencing satisfies the requirement of recording evidence “in the presence of the accused,” as cross-examination remains fully available.
The Court further clarified that the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, are facilitative rather than prohibitory. Citing Rule 18, the Bench held that procedural requirements may be relaxed where strict adherence would obstruct the delivery of justice.
Regarding the accused’s consent, the Court held that consent cannot serve as a veto power against legitimate prosecution evidence. Invoking Rule 18, the Bench relaxed the consent requirement specifically for the purpose of recording this witness’s testimony.
ALSO READ: Justice System Must Stand Firmly With Every Woman: CJI-Designate Surya Kant
Safeguards and Directions Issued
Allowing the CBI’s petition, the High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order and directed that the witness’s evidence be recorded via video conferencing from the Indian Consulate in New York.
The Court also laid down strict safeguards to maintain secrecy under the Official Secrets Act:
- The proceedings shall be conducted in camera.
- No digital storage, sharing, or downloading of classified materials will be permitted.
- Controlled, view-only access to documents will be provided to participants.
- Sanitised versions of documents may be transmitted only through diplomatic channels.
- All exhibits and transcripts will be sealed after testimony completion.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, SPP
Respondents: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocate Sarim Naved & Others
Case Title:
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Abhishek Verma & Ors.
CRL.M.C. 4711/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28694-28695/2023
READ JUDGMENT