Procedural guarantees can't be turned into dead letter, SC against sealed cover proceedings

Actions which violate procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome of the case, the bench said

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said sealed cover proceedings -- which infringed the principles of natural justice and open justice -- should be avoided, if its purpose could be realised effectively by public interest immunity proceedings or any other less restrictive means.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said the court should undertake an analysis of the possible procedural modalities that could be used to realise the purpose.

"While there may be material on serious concerns of national security which cannot be disclosed; the constitutional principle of procedural guarantees is equally important and it cannot be turned into a dead letter," the bench said.

Also Read | SC junks plea by 14 Opposition parties accusing Centre of misusing CBI, ED

"As the highest constitutional court, it is our responsibility to balance these two considerations when they are in conflict. To safeguard the claimant against a potential injury to procedural guarantees in public interest immunity proceedings, we have recognised a power in the court to appoint an amicus curiae. The appointment of an amicus curiae will balance concerns of confidentiality with the need to preserve public confidence in the objectivity of the justice delivery process," the bench added.

The courts could adopt the course of action of redacting the confidential portions of the document and providing a summary of the contents of the document instead of opting for the sealed cover procedure to fairly exclude the document from the proceedings on a successful public interest immunity claim. Both the parties can then only be permitted to refer to the redacted version of the document or the summary in the proceeding, the bench said.

In its judgement quashing the Centre's decision not to renew licence of Malayalam news channel, Media One, the bench said the government violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing protected under Article 21 of the Constitution by not providing a reasoned order and not disclosing the relevant material and by giving a sealed envelope to the High Court only.

"Actions which violate procedural guarantees can be struck down even if non-compliance does not prejudice the outcome of the case. The core of the principles of natural justice breathes reasonableness into procedure. The burden is on the claimant to prove that the procedure followed infringes upon the core of procedural guarantees," the bench said.

The bench said though public interest immunity proceedings will take place in a closed setting, the court is required to pass a reasoned order for allowing or dismissing the claim in open court.

"We are cognizant of the objection that may be raised that an order justifying the reasons for allowing the claim would have to inevitably disclose information on the very material that it seeks to protect. The court in such cases is still required to provide a reasoned order on the principles that it had considered and applied, even if the material that is sought to not be disclosed is redacted from the reasoned order. However, the redacted material from the reasoned order shall be preserved in the court records which may be accessed by the courts in the future, if the need arises," Justice Chandrachud, who authored 134-page judgement, wrote.