The Delhi High Court has permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to record the testimony of 79-year-old American businessman C Edmonds Allen via videoconferencing from the Indian Consulate in New York, in connection with a 2012 Official Secrets Act (OSA) case linked to arms dealer Abhishek Verma.
A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the verdict on Wednesday while dealing with the CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s April 6, 2023, order.
Verma and his associate, Anca Maria Neacsu, were booked by the CBI under the OSA and Indian Penal Code in August 2012 for possessing classified defence ministry documents, including the Indian Air Force’s acquisition plans and minutes of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) meetings. The case was registered following Allen’s June 6, 2012, letter to the then defence minister containing information and enclosing documents related to Indian defence matters, which were classified. Allen had claimed that he had received the documents from Verma.
The trial court had in its order dismissed the agency’s application to examine Allen as a prosecution witness in the case through videoconferencing, concluding that sharing classified documents with a witness in the US could violate secrecy provisions and risk unauthorised disclosure.
The CBI, in its petition before the high court, asserted that Allen was a material witness, who had been examined earlier too, and OSA did not prohibit recording evidence through VC, particularly where secrecy was preserved through in-camera proceedings and controlled handling protocols. The federal agency further asserted that the documents were within the witness’s knowledge, and since Allen was a senior citizen with serious cardiac and orthopaedic conditions, videoconferencing was the only viable means to secure his evidence.
{{/usCountry}}The CBI, in its petition before the high court, asserted that Allen was a material witness, who had been examined earlier too, and OSA did not prohibit recording evidence through VC, particularly where secrecy was preserved through in-camera proceedings and controlled handling protocols. The federal agency further asserted that the documents were within the witness’s knowledge, and since Allen was a senior citizen with serious cardiac and orthopaedic conditions, videoconferencing was the only viable means to secure his evidence.
{{/usCountry}}The petition was opposed by Verma’s lawyer Maninder Singh, asserting that it was misconceived, rested on suppression/misstatement of material facts and merited dismissal. He further argued that Allen, who was a director and shareholder of M/s Ganton India Private Limited — a company incorporated in the U.S. by Verma and Neacsu — was actively involved in its day-to-day operations and played a participatory role. The counsel contended that Allen should have been named as an accused rather than being presented as a prosecution witness.
Overturning the ruling, Justice Narula in his 12-page verdict said that OSA did not prohibit trials or evidence being recorded electronically, provided adequate safeguards are in place and directed for conducting the proceedings be conducted in-camera.
“While the apprehension recorded by the Trial Court, that the use of video conferencing may occasion leakage of classified material, cannot be dismissed as fanciful, yet the answer in law is not prohibition but regulation in a just and equitable manner through adequate safeguards,” the court maintained.
It added, “OSA does not interdict the conduct of trials; it prescribes the manner in which sensitive proceedings are to be held. Section 14 of OSA, read with Section 327 of CrPC, authorises the Court to insulate the process from public gaze and to impose conditions that preserve secrecy. The proper judicial response is therefore to manage risk, while preserving the integrity of the proceeding.”