Union government has cautioned senior bureaucrats that disclosing classified or sensitive information to the media could invite action under the Official Secrets Act, sharpening its stance on internal leaks amid concerns over national security and administrative discipline.A classified communication circulated last month by the Ministry of Home Affairs to secretaries across ministries and departments updates an earlier advisory issued nearly three decades ago. The revised note explicitly warns that unauthorised sharing of protected material may trigger proceedings under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, according to officials familiar with its contents. The advisory cites what it describes as a rise in instances of sensitive information being leaked to “unauthorised or undesirable elements”, with the potential to compromise national interest and security and cause embarrassment to the government.
The Official Secrets Act, a colonial-era law retained after Independence, criminalises the disclosure of information deemed prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the security of the state, or friendly relations with foreign powers. It provides for imprisonment and fines for those found guilty of communicating secret information without authorisation. While the Act has long been criticised by civil liberties groups for its broad definitions and sweeping powers, governments across political dispensations have defended it as a necessary safeguard for national security.
Officials said the latest communication does not introduce new legal provisions but reiterates existing obligations under service conduct rules and the Act. Central Civil Services Rules already bar government employees from making unauthorised communications of official documents or information. The fresh warning appears aimed at reinforcing compliance, particularly at senior levels where access to classified files and policy deliberations is extensive.
The development comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over leaks related to internal policy discussions, security operations and inter-ministerial correspondence. In several high-profile instances over the past decade, investigative reports have relied on internal documents, prompting debate within government over the handling of confidential material. Security agencies have periodically flagged concerns that digital communication platforms and informal channels have made it easier for sensitive information to be disseminated beyond authorised circles.
Legal experts note that the Official Secrets Act has been invoked sparingly against serving officials but has been used in cases involving defence establishments, intelligence agencies and alleged espionage. The Supreme Court has, in various rulings, underlined the importance of balancing national security with the public’s right to information. The Right to Information Act, 2005, which promotes transparency in governance, contains exemptions for information that would prejudicially affect sovereignty, security or strategic interests, thereby coexisting with the secrecy regime under the OSA.
Former civil servants say such circulars typically serve as deterrents rather than immediate precursors to prosecution. They argue that internal vigilance mechanisms, departmental inquiries and disciplinary proceedings under service rules are more common responses to suspected leaks. However, the explicit reference to the Official Secrets Act in the updated note signals a willingness to escalate matters where authorities believe disclosures cross into the realm of criminal liability.
Press freedom advocates have long contended that overbroad application of secrecy laws can have a chilling effect on whistleblowing and investigative journalism. They argue that public interest disclosures exposing wrongdoing or maladministration should be protected rather than penalised. Government representatives, on the other hand, maintain that unauthorised leaks can undermine sensitive negotiations, compromise security operations and distort policy debates by releasing incomplete or contextual information.
The language of the Home Affairs communication reflects concern not only about security implications but also about reputational risks. By referring to potential embarrassment to the government, it underscores the political and administrative sensitivity surrounding leaks of draft policies, cabinet notes or internal assessments. Such documents, when reported in the media, can trigger market reactions, diplomatic friction or public controversy before formal decisions are taken.
Chronologically, the advisory updates a circular issued 28 years earlier, which had reminded officials of their obligations regarding confidentiality. The addition of a direct warning about proceedings under the Official Secrets Act marks a more pointed articulation of consequences. Officials familiar with the process said the note was classified and not intended for public dissemination, suggesting that its circulation was confined to senior administrative leadership.
Analysts observe that governments globally grapple with managing classified information in an era of digital documentation and instant communication. Several democracies have tightened internal protocols, introduced secure digital systems and strengthened audit trails to track document access. India has expanded secure government email platforms and emphasised data security training for officials, although challenges remain in ensuring compliance across vast bureaucratic structures.