Recording Evidence Through Video Conferencing Not Barred Under Official Secrets Act: Delhi High Court
Noting that the Official Secrets Act contains no prohibition on recording testimony through virtual mode, the Court held that secrecy can be preserved through in-camera proceedings, restricted access to sensitive documents, and controlled digital protocols.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that evidence in a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) can be validly recorded through video conferencing, as long as secrecy is maintained through in-camera proceedings and strict handling protocols.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Special Judge, who had refused to permit examination of a material witness through video conferencing in a case relating to the alleged transmission of classified information.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, upon hearing the matter, observed that “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” and invoked the Court’s power to relax procedural requirements under the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
The petitioner was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh Kumar, while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the respondents.
Background
An FIR was registered in 2012 under the Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B IPC, alleging unauthorised communication of classified defence documents. After investigation, a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets were filed.
One of the prosecution witnesses residing abroad expressed an inability to travel due to age and health conditions, following which the CBI sought permission to record his evidence through video conferencing from the Indian Consulate in New York.
The Trial Court rejected the request on the ground that classified documents would have to be transmitted abroad for familiarisation and exhibition, which could amount to a breach of secrecy under OSA. The Trial Court further held that the accused had not consented, as required under Rule 5.3.11 of the Video Conferencing Rules.
The CBI challenged the order before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court analysed the scope of Section 482 CrPC and the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, holding that the Rules are facilitative, not prohibitory, emphasising that Rule 18 empowers the High Court to relax procedural requirements where rigid application would impede justice.
Referring to State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai, the Bench held that evidence recorded through video conferencing satisfies the requirement of recording evidence in the presence of the accused, since cross-examination is preserved.
Rejecting the Trial Court’s view that secrecy concerns prevented video conferencing, the Court held that secrecy can be ensured through safeguards contemplated under Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 327 CrPC. The Court explained that the correct judicial response is regulation, not prohibition.
While making these observations, the Bench stated that “OSA does not interdict the conduct of trials; it prescribes the manner in which sensitive proceedings are to be held. The proper judicial response is therefore to manage risk, while preserving the integrity of the proceeding.”
On the issue of accused consent, the Bench invoked Rule 18 of the High Court’s Rules and held that consent cannot operate as a veto over valid prosecution evidence. The Court relaxed the requirement of consent for the limited purpose of examining the witness through video conferencing.
The Court also noted the witness’s age, medical constraints and security concerns, and held that virtual examination from the Indian Consulate would preserve both the witness’s safety and the secrecy required by OSA.
Conclusion
Allowing the CBI’s petition, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and permitted examination of the prosecution witness through video conferencing from the Indian Consulate in New York.
The Court directed the Trial Court to conduct the proceedings in-camera, prohibit digital storage, sharing or downloading of documents, and ensure controlled view-only access to classified material.
It also directed that sanitised documents may be transmitted only through diplomatic channels, and all exhibits and transcripts shall be sealed after completion of testimony.
Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Abhishek Verma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9427)
Appearances
Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, SPP
Respondents: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocate Sarim Naved & Others
