The Supreme Court in Sama Alana Abdulla vs State of Gujarat (1996) held: (a) that the word ‘secret’ in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 qualified official code or password and not any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information and (b) when the accused was found in conscious possession of the material (map in that case) and no plausible explanation has been given for its possession, it has to be presumed as required by Section 3(2) of the act that the same was obtained or collected by the appellant for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state.

This implies that a sketch, plan, model, article, note or document need not necessarily be secret in order to be covered by the act, provided it is classified as an official secret. Consequently, even information which does not have a bearing on national security is not to be disclosed if the public servant obtained or has access to it by virtue of holding office. Such overly harsh and sweeping provisions help create a Kafkaesque atmosphere of secrecy about even trifling matters as shown by the travails of the former RAW officer whose criticism of the procurement practices in his former organisation have been taken to be a breach of the OSA. His revelations may be considered as whistle-blowing by some while his former colleagues may consider them to be more a case of washing dirty linen in public. But how such allegations can be considered a breach of national security is difficult to fathom.

... contd.