Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Video-Conferencing Examination in Official Secrets Act Case.

Update / Judgement Date

28 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

4 min read

Criminal LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Video-Conferencing Examination in Official Secrets Act Case.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order refusing to allow the examination of witness Mr. C. Edmonds Allen through video-conferencing in a case under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA). The Court held that the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 are facilitative, not restrictive, and that the consent of the accused under Rule 5.3.11 cannot act as an absolute bar.

Invoking Rule 18, the Court relaxed this requirement and permitted video-conferencing testimony from the Indian Consulate, New York, with stringent safeguards to protect classified material.


Background:
  1. The CBI registered RC AC-1/2012/A0012 on 28 August 2012 under Section 3, OSA, read with Section 120-B IPC, alleging that Abhishek Verma, Anca Maria Neacsu, and others had obtained and transmitted classified defence documents to unauthorised persons, including C. Edmonds Allen.
  2. The FIR was based on Allen’s letter dated 6 June 2012 to the Defence Minister, enclosing sensitive material later found to be classified.
  3. The CBI sought to examine Allen (PW-46) via video-conferencing due to his residence in the U.S. and health issues.
  4. The Trial Court dismissed the application (6 April 2023), reasoning that providing copies of classified documents to a witness abroad would violate the OSA and that the accused’s consent for video-conferencing was mandatory.
  5. The CBI challenged this order under Section 482 CrPC.


Court’s Observations:
  1. Purpose of Rule 5.3.11: The rule ensures fairness to the accused but does not confer a veto power preventing the examination of witnesses.
  2. Rule 18 Relaxation: The High Court has the authority to relax procedural requirements where rigid application would impede justice.
  3. Video-Conferencing as Valid Evidence: Following State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai (2003 4 SCC 601) and Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2019 6 SCC 203), evidence recorded by video-conference satisfies Section 273 CrPC.
  4. OSA Concerns: The OSA does not prohibit video-conferencing; secrecy can be maintained through in-camera proceedings and restricted access.
  5. Safeguards Over Prohibition: Risk of information leakage must be managed, not used to deny evidence. Secure in-camera proceedings, court-controlled feeds, and redacted copies can adequately preserve confidentiality.
  6. Material Witness: Allen’s testimony is essential to prove the chain of custody and authenticity of the documents forming the core of the prosecution case.
  7. Health and Age Considerations: At 79 years, compelling travel would jeopardise his health and delay the trial; remote testimony is a practical and just solution.


Court’s Directions:
  1. Impugned order dated 6 April 2023 set aside.
  2. Consent under Rule 5.3.11 relaxed under Rule 18 of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
  3. The Trial Court shall record PW-46’s evidence via video-conferencing from the Indian Consulate, New York, with these safeguards:
  4. Proceedings to be held in-camera (Section 14 OSA read with Section 327 CrPC).
  5. Classified documents to be exhibited only at the Court Point in India; witness to view through a secured, view-only feed.
  6. Any redacted certified copies, if indispensable, to be transmitted via official diplomatic channels and returned sealed.
  7. Use of end-to-end encrypted VC platform; recording/printing disabled.
  8. Trial Court to coordinate with the Consulate for suitable dates and consolidated hearings.
  9. All pending issues, including applications under Section 319 CrPC, left open.
  10. Registry to forward this order to the Indian Consulate (New York), MEA, and the Trial Court for implementation.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 3, Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Penalty for spying and unauthorised communication of secret information.
  2. Section 14, Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Exclusion of public from trial.
  3. Sections 120-B, 311, 319, 327, 482 CrPC – Criminal conspiracy; summoning witnesses; addition of accused; in-camera proceedings; inherent powers of High Court.
  4. Rule 5.3.11 & Rule 18, Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 – Consent of accused; relaxation of procedural requirements.


Citation: 2025:DHC:65343

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Abhishek Verma & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4711/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28694–28695/2023