Official Secrets Act Doesn't Bar Supply Of Documents Relied Upon In Chargesheet To Accused : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the documents relied upon by the prosecution against a person booked under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) cannot be denied to him merely on account of an apprehension that the supply of such a confidential or crucial document would endanger the safety and security of the country.

“…we are of firm opinion that supply of documents cannot be denied to the Appellants merely on the ground that provisions of the OSA have been invoked against him.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's decision which interfered with the trial court's decision directing the supply of the documents to the Appellant-accused.

“It is trite law that an accused cannot be denied access to documents forming part of the chargesheet, including those from the general diary, if such documents were obtained in good faith, are relevant to the prosecution's case, and their disclosure is considered necessary by the Public Prosecutor for the interests of justice and fair trial. It is so because withholding such documents could seriously prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.”, the court observed.

The Appellant VK Singh-a retired Major General of Indian Army, who has also worked as a Joint Secretary in Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW) from November 2000 to June 2004- was booked under Section 3/5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter, 'OSA') and Sections 409/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for publishing a book titled “India's External Intelligence – Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)”, wherein he published various classified secret information about the Army, which according to the prosecution have made general public, foreigners/foreign countries to know the classified secrets of the State that has endangered security as well as sovereignty of India.

The chargesheet was filed against the Appellant, with a request by the CBI to the Trial Court to keep all the classified documents forming part of the chargesheet in a sealed cover. The trial court took cognizance, and thereafter an application seeking a supply of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Appellant.

Aggrieved by the trial court direction to supply the documents relied upon in the chargesheet, the prosecution moved the High Court, which in turn, modified the trial court's decision, and instead permitted the Appellant to inspect the documents lying with the Trial Court to enable him to effectively defend himself in the trial.

Against the High Court's decision, the appellant moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the invocation of OSA doesn't take away the right of the accused person to get copies of the documents forming part of the chargesheet.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed that denial of supply of documents relied in the chargesheet deprives a valuable right to defend himself during the trial.

The Court rejected the CBI's stand under Section 14 of the OSA, that permitting the supply of documents would endanger the security interests of the country. Instead, relying on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick and Others, (1981) 2 SCC 109, the Court termed the CBI's argument against non-supply as mere apprehension, which cannot curtail or take away the statutory right of the accused to demand supply of documents relied in the chargesheet.

“If an accused is not supplied either the statements recorded by the police or the statements of witnesses recorded at the inquiry or the trial, how can he possibly defend himself and instruct his lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses successfully and effectively so as to disprove the prosecution case. We, therefore, think that Section 14 could never have intended to take away or deprive an accused of this valuable right which has been conferred on him by the criminal law of the land.”, the court quoted from Satyen Bhowmick (supra).

Additionally, the Court in Satyen Bhowmick (supra) also clarified that sufficient safeguards have already been incorporated under Section 5 of the OSA to deter the leak of sensitive or crucial information.

“Section 5 of the Act any person who is found in possession or control of any document or information and makes it public would also be deemed to have committed an offence under that Section and would be prosecuted and entitled to a heavy penalty. This, therefore, prohibits even the lawyers from disclosing the evidence outside the court.”, the court observed in Satyen Bhowmick (supra).

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, with a direction to the Respondent-CBI to supply the typed copies of the documents asked for by the accused.

“We direct that the typed copy of the documents as referred in the application filed by the Appellant under Section 207 of CrPC in paragraph nos. 1(a) and 1(b) be provided to the accused for the purpose of his defence within two months. The inspection of those documents, if needed, may be permitted during court proceedings by the Trial Court.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: V.K. SINGH VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Suroor Mander, Ms. Sehrish Jafri, 

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.