Recently in the ongoing One Rank One Pension (OROP) case, the Supreme Court has expressed its concerns over the use of the sealed cover procedure, calling it “fundamentally against the judicial process.” The apex court has also asked the Centre to consider ending this practice. The OROP case has been in the headlines for several years now, with ex-servicemen demanding equal pensions for those who retired before and after 2006. The government announced the OROP scheme in 2015, but the ex-servicemen claimed that it was not implemented in its true spirit.
During the hearing on Thursday, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the use of the sealed cover procedure was becoming a “norm,” and it was being used in almost all cases. The bench pointed out that the process was fundamentally against the principles of natural justice, as it does not allow the affected party to have a say in the matter. The sealed cover procedure is a mechanism used by courts to keep certain information confidential, either to protect the interests of a party or to maintain the integrity of the investigation. In such cases, the court would ask the parties to submit the information in a sealed envelope, which would be opened only by the judges.
However, the Supreme Court has now observed that the use of the sealed cover procedure has become a “lazy method” of adjudication, and it was time to put an end to it. The bench further stated that in cases where the information is of national security or the public interest, the court could consider appointing a special officer to verify the contents of the sealed envelope. The Centre, a respondent in the OROP case, has been asked to consider the Supreme Court’s observations and come up with a solution to end the use of the sealed cover procedure. The bench has given the Centre four weeks to file an affidavit in this regard.
The use of the sealed cover procedure has been a subject of debate for several years now, with many experts calling for its abolition. The Supreme Court’s observations in the OROP case could pave the way for a larger debate on the issue and lead to a more transparent judicial process in the country.
Written By- Lakshya Sharma student of 1st year BBA LLB at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
0 Comments