Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court publicly questioned the sealed cover procedure, arguing that greater judicial transparency strengthens constitutional trust and public confidence. He stated that courts must be accountable institutions, not opaque ones. The sealed cover practice allows courts to receive documents from parties without disclosing contents to other litigants, raising due process concerns. Justice Bhuyan's remarks signal a growing judicial consensus questioning this procedure's compatibility with open court principles and natural justice guarantees.

The sealed cover procedure refers to the practice where courts, typically the Supreme Court, receive documents or reports from government agencies or parties in sealed envelopes without sharing their contents with the opposing party or the public. This practice has been used in cases involving national security, CBI investigations, electoral bonds, and sensitive administrative matters.

The core constitutional tension is between Article 19(1)(a) read with open court principles versus executive claims of privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 74(2) which bars inquiry into ministerial advice. Critics argue sealed covers violate the principle of audi alteram partem — no party should be judged on evidence they cannot see or contest.

Justice Bhuyan's intervention is significant because it comes from a sitting judge, elevating what was previously an academic critique into a judicial one. The Supreme Court itself has used sealed covers in cases like the Rafale review petition, Pegasus surveillance matter, and electoral bonds case.

For CLAT PG, the examiner tests whether aspirants understand the procedural principle being challenged, the constitutional provisions in tension, and the landmark judgments where sealed cover was either upheld or questioned. The principle of open justice — that justice must not only be done but seen to be done — is the static doctrine anchoring this news event.