Official Secrets Act

After independence, the Act was amended and renamed by the Parliament as the Indian Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 1967. This made the Act much more stringent than it was under British rule.

• The 1923 Act includes penalties for spying under Section 3 of the Act. This section provides penalties for spying, where anyone approaches, or inspects, etc. any vicinity or place for making any sketch, plan, model, etc.
• It is liable to be punished under this provision with imprisonment, which is a maximum of 15 years as provided under these provisions.
• Section 4 of the Act makes the act of communicating or even attempting to communicate with foreign agents to be treated as relevant evidence for proving that such person communicating or attempting communication is against the safety or interests of the state.
• Section 5 says that if the person in possession of any secret official code, etc., used such secret stuff in a prohibited place or otherwise in a manner that is likely to assist an enemy or otherwise was a hazard to the sovereignty and integrity of India, then such person would be held guilty under this Act.
• Similarly,  all other acts relating to such secret official information that are provided under this provision of Section 5 of the Act are prohibited, and if done, then persons doing this are liable to punishment, which should include imprisonment and a fine.
  
  

• The primary criticism of the Act is that it reverses the fundamental principle of a democratic republic, where the state is expected to be transparent to its citizens.
• While it is nobody’s case that all information ought to be made public—for example, troop movements in wartime or confidential trade negotiation positions, to take two examples that need to be kept secret—there should be a heavy presumption against secrecy.
• Under the OSA, however, the state is given wide powers to place information off limits to citizens, simply by stipulating that certain documents are secret—and then draconian powers to punish them in case they are made public, regardless of the public interest involved.
• This makes whistle-blowing and investigative journalism a perilous enterprise, no matter how critically important it might be to make the information public.
  
  

• The Right to Information Act has diluted the scope of the OSA.
• Section 22 of the RTI Act explicitly says it overrides the OSA, i.e., it is not open to the government to deny access to a document demanded through an RTI question on the basis that it has been marked secret under the OSA.
• The government will have to justify its decision to withhold information under the arguably narrower exception clauses of the RTI Act itself.
  

Controversy over the Rafale deal:

Recently, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 has been in the news due to the controversy surrounding the Rafale deal in India. The Government of India has taken action against several newspaper agencies, including The Hindu and ANI, for violating the provisions of the Act. These agencies published reports that suggested the negotiating team and Ministry of Defence were opposed to the Rafale deal, and the government did not follow proper procurement procedures.
The government claims that these newspaper agencies have violated the norms of the said Act by publishing the reports and documents related to deal with France to buy 36 Rafale jets. The government is taking legal action against newspaper agencies for violating the Official Secrets Act of 1923. The newspaper agencies are defending themselves by claiming their constitutional right under the Right to Information Act of 2005.

Any suggestions or correction in this article - please click here ([email protected])