This brings us to the fourth issue, the moral and legal issue of the status of the data. Since it was stolen data, and also data made available by a whistle-blower, can a constitutional system use this data for prosecution? Is the use of stolen data compatible with the rule of law? Does the fact that the data was confirmed by the government of France change its legal status as stolen data? Is this similar to the doctrine of double effect in moral philosophy, where an action that causes harm is permitted, as a side effect, if the primary purpose of the action is to promote some good end? Germany had to deal with this moral conundrum when stolen data from a Swiss bank, of German tax avoiders, was offered to the German government for a price. The German government bought the stolen data. Now let me move to the other dimension, the political culture of the sealed envelope. The question of whether this is an Indian ritual or a colonial legacy is for historians to establish. For those of us who have worked on government committees, the “sealed envelope” guarantees the impartiality of the process. I have been a member of the executive committee of many universities and in many meetings, almost routinely, a sealed envelope is placed before the committee and we are informed that it contains the list of candidates, selected by a committee, for a professors position in a particular department. The sealed envelope has been in the possession of the registrar who, at the meeting, formally seeks the permission of the vice-chancellor to open it. This is given by a subtle nod. The envelope is then held up, higher than the table around which we are seated, as if to place it in the light and thereby show the members of the committee that the process is both proper and confidential. In some cases the envelope is sealed with red wax. A little ceremony of de-sealing the envelope then takes place, an important ritual of impartiality. None among the committees members even looks at the envelope. When was it sealed? Who sealed it? Could it have been done 20 minutes before the meeting, are questions too embarrassing to be asked. The opened envelope is not subjected to forensic examination. We have seen the raised sealed envelope. This is enough. Fairness is guaranteed. It meets the CAG’s requirement