Official Secrets Act 1923, Objectives, Provisions, Penalties, Criticism

The Official Secrets Act 1923 is a colonial-era national security law designed to prevent espionage, protect classified information, and secure strategic government installations. The Act’s roots trace to the 1889 and 1904 secrecy laws, strengthened under Lord Curzon before the final 1923 revision. 

It criminalises actions that may aid an enemy state through disclosure of sensitive documents, codes, sketches, or communications related to defence and security. The Act also restricts access to prohibited areas such as military zones, power installations, and communication hubs. It continues to remain significant due to India’s sensitive security environment and frequent concerns over information leaks.

Official Secrets Act 1923 Objectives

The Official Secrets Act 1923 aims to safeguard classified information and prevent any activity that could compromise India’s security.

• Prevent espionage, spying, or communication of sensitive material that may support enemy states or foreign agencies.
• Prohibit unauthorised access, approach, inspection, or mapping of restricted government locations such as power substations or defence sites.
• Restrict dissemination of sketches, plans, models, official codes, passwords, or classified documents to unauthorised persons.
• Ensure that only authorised government officials handle classified material and impose strict accountability for any breach.
• Strengthen state authority to act against attempts to interfere with national security, both intentional and unintentional.
• Protect defence operations, military preparedness, and confidential diplomatic communications.

Official Secrets Act 1923 Provisions

The Official Secrets Act 1923 outlines broad powers for investigation, prosecution, access restrictions, document handling rules, and secrecy obligations covering citizens and entities.

• Espionage criminalization (Section 3): Possession or sharing of sensitive documents, secret codes, or information endangering national security attracts severe penalties, including imprisonment up to 14 years.
• Disclosure offences (Section 5): Penalizes unauthorized disclosure, retention, or failure to return official documents, even by those knowingly receiving such material.
• Authority-based access: Only authorized personnel may handle classified information; others are punishable for possession inside or outside prohibited areas.
• Search powers: Magistrates may issue search warrants at any time if evidence suggests possible security risks.
• Journalistic obligations: Journalists must assist police or military officers during investigations, including revealing sources when required by law.
• Closed hearings: Courts may exclude the public and media from proceedings if sensitive information is involved.
• Corporate liability: When a company commits an offence, persons involved in management (including editors and publishers of newspapers) may be held responsible.

‹ ›

Official Secrets Act 1923 Penalties

The Official Secrets Act 1923 prescribes strict penalties for espionage, unauthorized disclosure, possession of secret material, and corporate involvement in classified information breaches.

• Imprisonment range: Punishments vary from three years to life imprisonment depending on the severity and intent of the offence.
• Section 3 penalties: Sharing/ Obtaining sensitive information may lead imprisonment up to 14 years with/ without fine.
• Section 5 penalties: Unauthorized disclosure or retention of documents attracts imprisonment up to 3 years with/ without fine.
• Section 10 penalties: sheltering espionage involving individuals may lead to imprisonment up to 3 years with/ without fine.
• Punishable Offences under this act are:
  • War-related intent: Intent to assist an enemy state or engage in acts linked to war against India may lead to life imprisonment.
  • Corporate liability: Directors, managers, editors, and proprietors of organizations involved in violations can be prosecuted.
  • Harboring spies: Persons sheltering individuals involved in espionage face additional criminal liability.
  • Possession in prohibited areas: Handling secret material within restricted zones by unauthorized persons invites prosecution.
  • Search-related offences: Obstructing authorized searches or investigations attracts penal action.
  • Strict liability nature: A person can be punished even if the act was unintentional, provided classified material was handled without authority.

Official Secrets Act 1923 Criticism

The Official Secrets Act 1923 has been criticised for its broad definitions, colonial character, and conflict with transparency laws.

• Conflict with RTI Act 2005: Section 6 labels all government information as official, enabling authorities to deny disclosure, though the Supreme Court has clarified that RTI overrides OSA.
• Opaque and outdated framework: Provisions retain colonial intent of suppressing press freedom and discouraging public scrutiny.
• Misuse against journalists: Cases like Iftikhar Gilani (2002) exposed arbitrary arrests despite information being publicly available.
• Lack of clarity on classification: Documents marked “secret” may not actually contain sensitive security material, leading to misuse.
• Over-criminalisation: Punishments apply even when actions are unintentional or without national security threat.
• Conflict with modern transparency needs: RTI requirements for public interest disclosure clash with OSA’s secrecy-centric approach.

Official Secrets Act 1923 Recent Cases

Since 2014, India has recorded 50 Official Secrets Act violation cases, with most in 2016; Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh led filings. Major cases highlighting judicial scrutiny, reform discussions, rising case registrations, and debates on balancing security with transparency and press freedom are given below:

• Iftikhar Gilani Case (2002-2004): Charges collapsed after military intelligence confirmed information was publicly available.
• Delhi Court judgment (2009): Ruled that publishing a document merely labeled “secret” does not automatically make a journalist liable under OSA.
• Santanu Saikia case (2015): Journalist arrested for allegedly using stolen government documents; released after 80 days on bail.
• Proposed reforms (2017): Home Ministry recommended updating OSA to align with transparency requirements under the RTI Act.
• Rafale documents issue (2019): The government indicated OSA could apply to leaked papers published by The Hindu; the Supreme Court referenced RTI Act sections overriding OSA.
• Jyoti Rani Case (May 2025): A Haryana-based travel blogger and a YouTuber were arrested under Sections 3 and 5 of OSA and Section 152 of the BNS for alleged espionage and pro-Pakistan propaganda.