Congress Leader Jairam Ramesh Criticizes 'Sealed Cover' Practice in Supreme Court, Calls for Transparent Justice
New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh sparked a fresh debate on judicial transparency by criticizing the Supreme Court’s use of the “sealed cover” practice in handling sensitive cases. In a statement posted on X on September 16, Ramesh remarked, “If only all cases are dealt with and settled so expeditiously and categorically — of course, without this mysterious 'sealed cover' business.” His comment came in the context of recent high-profile rulings, including the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its handling of other politically sensitive matters. Ramesh’s critique has reignited discussions about judicial accountability, the balance between confidentiality and transparency, and the role of the judiciary in India’s democratic framework.
Context of the Comment
Jairam Ramesh’s statement appears to reference the Supreme Court’s recent verdict on September 16, 2025, dismissing a plea to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which had been challenged by petitioners alleging it facilitated a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim properties. The court’s decision, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was noted for its swiftness and clarity, prompting Ramesh to laud the expeditious resolution while questioning the judiciary’s reliance on sealed cover submissions in other cases. The practice, where sensitive documents are submitted to the court in sealed envelopes and withheld from public or litigant scrutiny, has been a point of contention in recent years.
Ramesh’s remark also alluded to broader judicial trends, including the Supreme Court’s handling of cases like the Electoral Bonds case and the Rafale deal, where sealed cover submissions were used to protect sensitive information. His critique aligns with the Congress party’s ongoing narrative of advocating for transparency in governance and judicial processes, particularly in matters involving public interest.
The Sealed Cover Controversy
The use of sealed covers in Indian courts has been a polarizing issue. Proponents argue that it protects national security, ongoing investigations, or sensitive personal data, as seen in cases involving defense deals, terror financing, or high-profile corruption probes. Critics, including legal scholars and opposition leaders like Ramesh, contend that the practice undermines transparency and the right to a fair trial by limiting access to evidence for litigants and the public.
In 2019, the Supreme Court itself acknowledged concerns about sealed covers in the Rafale case, with Justice K.M. Joseph cautioning against their overuse. More recently, in 2023, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the need for “structured discretion” in using sealed covers, advocating for public disclosure wherever possible. Despite these remarks, sealed cover submissions continue to feature in cases involving political and economic significance, such as the ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) probes into opposition leaders and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) challenges.
Ramesh’s statement reflects frustration with this opacity. “The sealed cover business creates a perception of secrecy that erodes public trust in the judiciary,” he elaborated in a follow-up interview with The Hindu. “Cases should be resolved openly, with all parties having access to the evidence, unless there’s an overwhelming reason for confidentiality.” His comments resonate with legal experts who argue that the practice can tilt the scales of justice, particularly in politically charged cases.
Political Reactions and Context
The Congress party has frequently criticized the judiciary’s use of sealed covers, particularly in cases involving opposition leaders or policies opposed by the party. For instance, in the Electoral Bonds case, sealed cover submissions by the State Bank of India delayed the disclosure of donor details, prompting accusations of shielding corporate-political nexus. Ramesh’s latest comment aligns with this stance, positioning the Congress as a champion of judicial transparency ahead of key state elections in 2025.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responded sharply, with spokesperson Sambit Patra accusing Ramesh of undermining judicial independence. “The Congress has no respect for the judiciary when rulings don’t favor them. Sealed covers are a judicial prerogative, not a political football,” Patra said at a press conference. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, who praised the Waqf Act verdict, defended the judiciary, stating, “The Supreme Court operates with the highest integrity. Sealed covers are used sparingly to protect national interests, and Congress’s criticism is politically motivated.”
Other opposition parties, including the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen (AIMIM), echoed Ramesh’s concerns. AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, commenting on the Waqf Act ruling, said, “Transparency is the bedrock of justice. Sealed covers in sensitive cases leave room for speculation and distrust.” The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) also weighed in, with Delhi Minister Saurabh Bhardwaj calling for clearer guidelines on when sealed covers are justified.
Public and Social Media Response
Ramesh’s statement gained traction on X, where it was widely shared and debated. A post by @CongressVoice quoted him, stating, “Jairam Ramesh nails it! Why the secrecy with sealed covers? Justice must be seen to be done.” Another user wrote, “Sealed covers are a black box in our judiciary. Time for reform!” However, some users defended the practice, with one posting, “Sealed covers protect sensitive data. Congress is just crying foul because they’re under ED’s scanner.”
The debate reflects broader public unease about judicial transparency, particularly in cases involving political figures. Legal activist Prashant Bhushan, who has long criticized sealed covers, supported Ramesh’s stance, tweeting, “The judiciary must prioritize openness. Sealed covers should be the exception, not the norm.” The hashtag #EndSealedCovers trended briefly, amplifying the call for reform.
Legal and Judicial Implications
The sealed cover practice has drawn scrutiny from legal scholars, who argue it violates principles of natural justice, such as the right to know the evidence against oneself. “When one party is denied access to documents, it creates an uneven playing field,” said Advocate Sanjay Hegde, a senior lawyer. He noted that while national security cases may justify confidentiality, the practice’s application in civil and political matters is often excessive.
The Supreme Court has attempted to address these concerns. In 2023, it issued guidelines urging judges to minimize sealed cover submissions and explore alternatives like redacted documents or in-camera hearings. However, implementation remains inconsistent, and cases like the ED’s ongoing probes into opposition leaders continue to rely on sealed envelopes, fueling perceptions of selective targeting.
Ramesh’s comment also touches on the broader issue of judicial efficiency. By praising the “expeditious and categorical” resolution of the Waqf Act case, he indirectly critiques delays in other high-profile matters, such as the Delhi liquor policy case involving AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal or the CBI’s probe into West Bengal’s school job scam. Legal experts suggest that his call for transparency could pressure the judiciary to streamline processes and reduce reliance on opaque mechanisms.
Looking Ahead
Jairam Ramesh’s critique has brought the sealed cover issue back into the spotlight, setting the stage for a renewed push for judicial reform. The Congress party is likely to leverage this narrative in its campaign for greater transparency, particularly as it gears up for state elections in Bihar and other regions. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court may face increased scrutiny over its handling of sensitive cases, with activists and opposition leaders calling for clearer protocols on sealed cover submissions.
As India navigates its complex judicial landscape, the debate over sealed covers underscores the delicate balance between confidentiality and accountability. For now, Ramesh’s statement has sparked a national conversation, urging stakeholders to prioritize a justice system that is both swift and transparent.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
