CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has declined both the state government’s request for return of documents submitted in a sealed cover and the petitioners’ plea seeking access to those documents, in an ongoing dispute over restructuring guidelines for SHGs under Mission Shakti.
The matter stems from a batch of petitions filed by SHG Federations challenging guidelines issued on January 22, 2025, by the department of Mission Shakti. Earlier, on April 25, 2025, the high court had granted an interim stay on two clauses of the guidelines.
During hearings on April 8 this year, advocate general Pitambar Acharya submitted certain government noting in a sealed cover. The court opened and examined the documents before resealing them and placing them in safe custody, to be accessed only if required by judicial order.
In subsequent proceedings, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications (IAs) seeking copies of the sealed documents, arguing that once the court had perused them, withholding access could create apprehensions of bias during adjudication. They also contended that the state had already relied upon these noting in arguments.
The state, however, submitted that it would not rely on the sealed cover documents and requested their return, on the ground that internal government noting do not constitute final decisions and cannot be the basis for legal rights or relief.
Disposing of the IAs on April 27, Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held that government noting are inherently non-binding and subject to revision or reversal by competent authorities. The court observed that such noting neither confer rights nor adversely affect the petitioners and, therefore, are not ordinarily subject to judicial scrutiny or challenge.
Balancing concerns raised by both sides, the court ruled that the sealed cover should neither be disclosed to the petitioners nor returned to the state. It directed that the documents remain in judicial custody to avoid any potential prejudice or controversy.
Accordingly, all IAs seeking disclosure of the documents were dismissed. The state’s request for return of the sealed cover was also rejected. The court directed that the sealed cover be transferred to the registrar (judicial) for safe custody until any further judicial direction.
