Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan permitted Major General (Retd.) V.K. Singh to inspect documents in a case arising from a CBI FIR alleging that he disclosed classified information about the Research and Analysis Wing in a book authored after his retirement in 2007. The Court, modifying the trial court’s order, held that inspection rather than supply of hard copies was appropriate given the sensitive nature of the material. It noted that the CBI had not opposed inspection, but only objected to handing over physical copies, balancing fair trial rights with security concerns

The case arose from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Major General (Retd.) V.K. Singh under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and allied provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR, dated 20.09.2007, alleged that he revealed secret information by publishing a book titled “India’s External Intelligence – Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)” after his retirement. Pursuant to search warrants issued on 20.09.2007, the CBI searched his premises and later filed a compliance report. On 07.04.2008, the Central Government authorized the filing of a complaint under Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act, leading to a chargesheet under Sections 3/5 of the Act and Sections 409/120B of the IPC.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority’s Appeal | Export Cargo Handling Services Liable to Service Tax Under Finance Act

The trial court (CMM, Tis Hazari) took cognizance on 31.01.2009 and, by its order dated 12.12.2009, directed the CBI to supply copies of certain classified documents sought by the respondents under Section 207 of the CrPC. However, it required that the documents remain in the personal custody of defence counsel to prevent circulation.

The CBI challenged this order before the High Court, contending that while inspection of the documents could be permitted, supplying hard copies of classified and sensitive material was impermissible. It relied on precedents such as P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (AIR 2020 SC 1) and CBI v. V.K. Jha (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1631–1632/2009). Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition, citing Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Satyen Bhowmick (1981) 2 SCC 109, and argued that Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act did not deprive the accused of the right to copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court recorded that “the purpose of supplying documents to the accused is to galvanise an accused person’s right to a fair trial as has been enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It further stated that “merely because the case falls within the purview of the Official Secrets Act cannot be a ground to deprive the accused of his right to be put to notice of the material against him.”

The Court noted that CBI did not oppose inspection but only objected to handing over hard copies. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. V.K. Jha & Anr., the judgment recorded: “However, we find that it would not be appropriate to permit the hard copies of the documents in question, to be handed over to the respondents though the respondents must be in a position to put up their defence. This can undoubtedly be done only if the respondents are aware of the contents of the documents.”

Justice Mahajan stated that the principle of law in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Satyen Bhowmick was not inconsistent with CBI v. V.K. Jha & Anr. as both upheld the accused’s right to defend themselves while allowing for restrictions based on national security concerns.

The Court noted: “In the present case, as well, the learned CMM, in the impugned order, noted that the documents are sensitive in nature. As noted above, CBI is not opposed to the inspection of the documents. It has only been contended that in view of the sensitive nature of the documents, a hard copy of the same be not supplied to the respondents.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court | GST Searches Upheld Under Section 67 CGST Act But CCTV Footage Of Assessee’s Family Inadmissible | Violates Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court

Justice Mahajan directed: “In that light, this Court deems it expedient to allow the inspection of the documents sought by the respondents as opposed to the supply of the copies of the documents to the counsel representing the respondents.”

 “The respondents along with their duly authorised counsel are permitted to inspect the documents lying with the learned Trial Court as and when required to enable the respondents to effectively defend themselves during the trial.” The Court held that this arrangement sufficiently protected both the respondents’ right to fair trial and the State’s interest in safeguarding sensitive information.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Prakash Airan, Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma & Mr. Vashisht Rao, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Chander M. Maini, Mr. Mayank Maini & Mr. B.K. Wadhwa, Advocates

Case Title: CBI v. V.K. Singh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8313
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 360/2010
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan