Courts should not permit litigants to submit information, documents in sealed cover: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court strongly deprecated the practice of courts accepting documents submitted by litigants in sealed cover [Sonali Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures & Ors. and connected matters]..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata said that courts should not permit the same since it violates the principles of fair justice and transparency in judicial process and prejudices the opposite side in the case. "No litigant can disadvantage the opponent by squirrelling some information into the court record ‘in sealed cover’. No party is entitled can rely on such ‘sealed cover material’ to the prejudice of the other side, and no court should permit it. To do so flies in the face of every concept of fair justice and openness and transparency in the decision-making process. It is time to bury this thoroughly pernicious practice," the bench said..The division bench was hearing a writ petition filed by one Sonali Tandel challenging an order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in relation to allotment of a flat. She claimed to have been severally prejudiced by being deprived of transit rent and also being denied the flat to which she was entitled.An earlier co-ordinate bench led by Justice GS Kulkarni took note of this and also noticed that the developer of the project had not been appearing before the court while continuing to defy its orders.The developer along with MHADA was issued show cause to explain why contempt of cout action should not be initiated against them for continuing to defy court orders. The Court also called upon the developer to file a disclosure affidavit setting out a list of unsold flats and financial statements in a sealed cover..This act of accepting the documents in a sealed cover without comments was however disapproved by the bench led by Justice Patel which clarified that it would not permit the same,."The simplest general principle is that anything that the Court can see, the opposing party must be allowed to see," the bench said. It went on to explain that if a party wanted immunity from disclosures, it has to make an application to the court and get a judicial order."It is never for a party to decide for itself what it will or will not disclose — most especially when there is an order of the Court ordering and compelling disclosure on affidavit. Where there are private disputes between two parties and a court has ordered a party to make a disclosure on affidavit of some material, there is simply no question of that party putting in anything ‘in sealed cover’. As a matter of law, that is non-compliance with a judicial order. In a given case, it will invite action in contempt," the 24 page order underscored..The bench also relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in the MediaOne case wherein the top court had set aside the Central government had relied on national security grounds to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne. The government in that case had, however, refused to inform what the precisely the national security concern was and had sought to submit the same in sealed cover. .[Read order]