|
The Delhi High Court has permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to record the testimony of US-based witness C Edmonds Allen through video conferencing in the high-profile Official Secrets Act (OSA) case against businessman Abhishek Verma and others, setting aside a trial court order that had earlier declined the request.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, delivering judgement, held that the trial court's refusal "converted a safeguard into a barrier," stressing that while secrecy must be maintained, it cannot come at the cost of obstructing justice. The court ruled that the OSA does not bar examination of witnesses via electronic means and that confidentiality concerns can be adequately addressed through "strict, court-controlled safeguards". "The proper judicial response is to manage risk, while preserving the integrity of the proceeding," Justice Narula observed, relaxing the requirement of the accused's consent under Rule 5.3.11 of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, by invoking Rule 18. Ordering that Allen's evidence be recorded from the Indian Consulate in New York, the court outlined a set of stringent protocols; the proceedings will be in camera, under Section 14 of the OSA and Section 327 of the CrPC. Original classified documents will remain in India and only be shown via a secure, view-only feed. Any certified copies, if essential, must be sanitised, transmitted through diplomatic channels, and stored under sealed custody at the Consulate. The examination will take place on a court-approved, encrypted video-conference platform, with no facility to record, copy, or download. The court said these measures "achieve the objectives of the OSA without undermining the trial's progress." Justice Narula also noted that Allen, aged 79 and suffering from health issues, cannot undertake long-haul travel. "Recording his evidence via video conferencing from the Consulate strikes the right balance between efficiency, fairness, and security," the court said. The High Court rejected the defence's contention that Allen should be summoned as an accused, observing that such an issue could be considered separately under Section 319 CrPC by the trial court. The petition was argued by Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, assisted by Dinhar Takiar, Sanjana Nair, Anurupita Kaur, Mudit Maruah, and Karan Tomar for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Sarim Naved and Zeeshan Ahmad appeared for Respondent No. 3, and Harshvardhan Jha, with Aman Pathak, represented the intervenor, C. Edmonds Allen, noted the court. Concluding that the CBI's petition merited interference, the court set aside the April 6, 2023, order of the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Court, and directed the lower court to coordinate with the Indian Consulate and the Ministry of External Affairs to complete the examination expeditiously. (ANI)
|
