Govt broadens rules that bar retired officials from publishing sensitive information
New Delhi, Jun 2: The Centre has amended its rules barring officers who had worked in intelligence and security related organisations from publishing sensitive information by adding new clauses, including the conditions that they can't share any material on "domain of the organisation" or its personnel.
The Central Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2021, dated May 31 and notified late Tuesday, also states that they need to take prior permission from the "head of the organization" for publishing such material. In the earlier 2007 rules, permission was to be taken from the head of the department.
Twenty-five organisations, including the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as well as the Special Protection Group (SPG) and the Border Security Force (BSF), are covered under the rules.
All employees would have to give an undertaking to the head of organisation that they would not publish sensitive information, failing which their pension can be "withheld or withdrawn", the amendment states.
According to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules 2007 that was notified in March 2008, the employees are already barred from publishing any sensitive information, "the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India".
The amended provision now reads, No government servant, who, having worked in any intelligence or security-related organization shall, without prior clearance from the head of the organisation, make any publication after retirement, of any material relating to and including domain of the organisation, including any reference or information about any personnel and his designation, and expertise or knowledge gained by virtue of working in that organization .
There was no mention of domain of the organisation and reference to any personnel in the 2007 rules.
"Domain may be taken to mean core area or core areas of the working of an organisation," an official explained.
The amended rules specify that they cover government servants who have worked in any Intelligence or Security-related organisation included in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) .
When the RTI Act was incorporated in 2005, 18 organisations were in Schedule two and their details could not be subjected to the transparency law. From 2008 to 2011, the number rose to 25 after the inclusion of the elite SPG guarding the prime minister, the CBI, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Allaying fears expressed in some sections of the media, government sources said the intention of the government is always to safeguard national interests .
"An erroneous and misleading narrative is sought to be created with regard to the rules, which were designed to remove any confusion regarding existing restrictions on the subject," they said.
The sources added that a few intelligence and government officials who had worked in intelligence or security-related organisations had in the past publicly expressed themselves by means of writing or speaking, revealing specific knowledge and sensitive information gained by virtue of having worked in that organisation .
Stating that the order was issued to bring clarity on the issue, the sources said, "By no means do these rules deny any such former official from expressing his/her views. In fact, it makes it easier for them to do so, given that they can now contact the Head of their former employer organisation and seek clarification on whether the proposed material is sensitive or non-sensitive."
The 2007 rules had barred employees from publishing material including "sensitive information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, or relation with a foreign state or which would lead to incitement of an offence" after their retirement.
The rules apply to employees who retire from the IB, RAW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Aviation Research Centre, BSF, Central Reserve Police Force, National Security Guards, Central Industrial Security Force and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police among others.
The list also includes the Narcotics Control Bureau, Special Frontier Force, Special Protection Group and Financial Intelligence Unit.
The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which have been amended to make way for 2007 and 2021 rules, however, don't apply to officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) among others.
The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 apply to those appointed on or before December 31, 2003.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
High courts upheld only 8 per cent of death sentences; SC confirms none in recent years: Report
New Delhi (PTI): Highlighting that a high acquittal rate of death row convicts by the Supreme Court and high courts demonstrates a pattern of "erroneous or unjustified convictions", a study of 10 years of death penalty data has revealed that the top court did not confirm any death sentences in recent years.
The study by Square Circle Clinic, a criminal laws advocacy group with the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, found that an overwhelming majority of death sentences imposed by trial courts did not withstand scrutiny at higher judicial levels. Acquittals far outnumbered confirmations at both the high courts and Supreme Court levels.
According to the report, the trial courts across India awarded 1,310 death sentences in 822 cases between 2016 and 2025. High courts considered 842 of these sentences in confirmation proceedings but upheld only 70 or 8.31 per cent.
In contrast, 258 death sentences (30.64 per cent) resulted in acquittals. The study noted that the acquittal rate at the high court level was nearly four times the confirmation rate.
Data showed that of the 70 death sentences confirmed by high courts, the Supreme Court decided 38 and did not uphold a single one. The apex court has confirmed no death sentences between 2023 and 2025.
"Wrongful or erroneous or unjustified convictions, then, are not random or freak accidents in the Indian criminal justice system. The data indicates they are a persistent and serious systemic concern," the report said.
Over the last decade, high courts adjudicated 1,085 death sentences in 647 cases, confirming only 106 (9.77 per cent). During this period, 326 persons in 191 cases, were acquitted.
The report attributed low confirmation rates to the appellate judiciary’s concerns regarding failures in due process. "This coincides with increased Supreme Court scrutiny of safeguards at the sentencing stage," the report said.
Of the 153 death sentences decided by the apex court over the last decade, the accused were acquitted in 38 cases. In 2025 alone, high courts overturned death sentences into acquittals in 22 out of 85 cases (over 25 per cent). The same year, Supreme Court acquitted accused persons in more than half of the death penalty cases it decided (10 out of 19), the report said.
The study highlighted that 364 persons who were ultimately acquitted "should not even have been convicted and unjustifiably suffered the trauma of death row". It added that such failures extend beyond adjudication and reflect serious lapses in investigation and prosecution.
The question of remedies for wrongful convictions remains pending before the Supreme Court. In September 2025, three persons acquitted by the apex court filed writ petitions seeking compensation from the state and argued that their wrongful convictions violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In 2022, the Supreme Court crystallised a sentencing process in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and mandated all courts to follow those guidelines before imposing or confirming a death sentence," the report read.
In 2025, the apex court held in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India that death penalty sentencing hearings form part of the right to a fair trial and stressed that capital punishment can be imposed only after a constitutionally compliant sentencing process.
"However, even at the high courts whether the process mandated under Manoj is being complied with is in doubt,” the report said.
