Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) assailing the order dated 6-4-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Trial Court had dismissed an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) seeking leave to examine a USA-based individual “CE” (‘witness’) as a prosecution witness through video-conferencing in a case under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (‘Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J, allowed the petition.
The Court held that the objective of the provisions under Official Secrets Act mandates that proceedings must be conducted in a manner preserving the secrecy of the subject matter and such conditions would be met through a Court-controlled, view-only mode of exhibition and, where strictly necessary, sanitised certified copies can be transmitted through the Consulate.
Background
The instant case had been registered in 2012 under Section 3 of the Act, read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 pursuant to a complaint from the Ministry of Defence (‘Ministry’). The said complaint had been the result of a letter sent by the witness containing information and documents relating to Indian defence matters which were considered classified and unauthorizedly communicated. On that basis, an FIR had been registered against Respondent 1, and his associate , Respondent 2, had in conspiracy with each other, obtained and transmitted classified defence information to unauthorized persons, including the witness.
Subsequently, the CBI filed an application in 2019, seeking examination of the witness through video conferencing
The Trial Court, vide the impugned order had dismissed the application stating that conducting video conferencing would involve transmission of documents that would give rise to the possibility of dissemination of sensitive information pertaining to the documents to unauthorized persons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, CBI had assailed the impugned order.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 (‘Video Conferencing Rules’), particularly Rule 18, are facilitative in nature and vest with the Court the authority to relax or dispense requirements of any Rule whose rigid application would cause undue hardship in just administration of proceedings.
The Court further noted that Rule 5.3.11 of the Video Conferencing Rules ensures that the accused’s fair-trial rights are kept in view before resort is taken to video conferencing. It does not confer a substantive veto over the prosecution’s ability to lead material evidence. The Court opined that the instant case was fit to invoke Rule 18 and relaxed the operation of Rule 5.3.11 for the witness.
The Court further observed that the objective of the Act is not to interdict the conduct of trials but rather it prescribes the manner in which sensitive proceedings are to be held. Section 14 of the Act, read with Section 327 of CrPC, authorises the Court to insulate the process from public gaze and to impose conditions that preserve secrecy. The proper judicial response is therefore to manage risk, while preserving the integrity of the proceeding.
The Court also observed that the witness’ testimony had a direct bearing on the provenance, transmission and authenticity of the documents. Furthermore, practicality also weighed in favour of permitting video conferencing since the Indian Consulate VC mechanism had already been tested in many cases and had been found workable. Thus, the Court stated that the mechanism was suitable calibrated to address the confidentiality requirements under the Act. The Court also considered the cardiac ailments and advancing age of the witness to state that recording of evidence through video conferencing from the Indian Consulate would strike the right balance between health concerns of the witness and progress of the trial.
Thus, the Court passed the following directions:
-
In exercise of Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules, the requirement of obtaining the respondent’s permission under Rule 5.3.11 was relaxed for obtaining the testimony of the witness.
-
The Trial Court shall record the witness’ evidence via video conferencing from the Indian Consulate, New York, in accordance with the Video Conferencing Rules.
-
In accordance with Section 14 of the Act read with Section 327 of the CrPC, the proceedings shall be in camera.
-
Original classified documents shall remain and be exhibited only at the Court Point. Where necessary for identification or familiarity, documents may be shown to the witness through view-only screen-share from the Court point, bearing an appropriate watermark.
-
The examination shall take place on a court-approved, end-to-end encrypted VC platform, with no recording, download, save, print, copy, or screenshot functions enabled at the remote point.
Accordingly, the Court disposed the petition.
[Central Bureau of Investigation v. SH Abhishek Verma, Crl. M.C. No. 4711 of 2023, decided on 28-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, SPP
For the Respondent: Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate, Dinhar Takiar, Sanjana Nair, Anurupita Kaur, Mudit Maruah, Karan Tomar, Sarim Naved, Zeeshan Ahmad, Harshvardhan Jha, Aman Pathak, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
