Section 164: Officer disclosing official secrets

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 19969/2556 (2013)

   The head of a State agency who has responsibility for the general administration of a unit is an agency head with power to order the disclosure of classified information under the official secrecy regulations, issued under the Official Information Act; a disclosure made within that authority is not a wrongful disclosure.

   In this state-audit dispute, the Court recognised that the head of the agency, being responsible for its general administration, had authority under the official secrecy regulations to order disclosure of classified information. That authority is relevant to whether an alleged disclosure was wrongful for the purposes of Section 164.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3194/2536 (1993)

   Persons appointed to an examination committee are officials, and their official duty runs from the time they learn of the appointment until the examination is complete, not only during the interview stage; a non-committee teacher who assists them is liable as a supporter.

   Examination committee members were found to be officials whose duty spanned the entire appointment, and they were convicted under Sections 157 and 164 for conduct relating to the examination, a protected official matter. Teachers who were not committee members but assisted them were liable as supporters. The case shows Section 164 applied to the leaking or mishandling of confidential examination material.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.