Single-judge Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Section 15A(10) of SC/ST Act, which mandates video recording of proceedings, does not carve out any exception as regards sexual offences.
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that all proceedings, including bail hearings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (SC/ST Act), must be recorded on video, even if the alleged offenses involve sexual crimes against women and children [Laxmi Narayan vs. State NCT of Delhi].
Justice Vikas Mahajan explained that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, which requires video recording of these proceedings, does not allow for any exceptions when it comes to sexual offenses.
“The legislature has not carved out any exception in Section 15A(10) of the Act for the sexual offences made punishable under Section 3(1)(w) and Section 3(2)(va). It is thus, amply clear that the legislature intended compliance of Section 15A(10) in respect of sexual offences committed under the Act as well as under IPC involving female victims whose identity, under the law, is required to be protected,” the Court said.
The Court was hearing a bail petition filed by one Laxmi Narayan, who is accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl belonging to a scheduled caste community.
He has been charged with rape (Section 376) and murder (Section 302) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and sexual atrocities against a woman under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
The complaint was filed by the victim’s father.
The accused submitted a bail application to the Patiala House Court, which was denied. He then appealed to the Delhi High Court.
During the bail hearings, advocate Mehmood Pracha, who is representing the complainant-father, said that under Section 15A (10) of the Act, all proceedings related to offenses under the Act, including this case, need to be recorded on video.
He contended that in the present case, the minor daughter of the complainant was raped and murdered by the accused persons. Since the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community, he is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(1)(ec) of the SC/ST Act, it was argued.
Additionally, because some of the charges in this case are under the SC/ST Act, the rules in Section 15A(10) of the Act apply to these bail proceedings, making it necessary to record them on video.
He pointed out that Section 15A of the SC/ST Act is called “Rights of Victims and Witnesses,” meaning the victim has the right to request video recording of the proceedings, and this right should be protected.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ritesh Kumar Bahri countered Pracha’s argument. He explained that the Supreme Court, in the case of Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India, ruled that no one can print or publish the name of a victim under the POCSO Act in any form of media, including print, electronic, or social media. This also includes sharing any details that could help identify the victim or reveal her identity to the public.
He also pointed out Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC, which make it illegal to reveal the identity of victims of sexual offenses. He argued that these laws take priority over Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act.
Because the bail proceedings in this case involve offenses under the POCSO Act, he insisted that they should not be recorded on video.
The lawyer for the accused made a similar argument.
Pracha responded to this by arguing that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act only requires video recordings of the proceedings and doesn’t mention anything about publishing those recordings or sharing them with anyone.
He also pointed out that Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC are designed to protect the identity of victims of sexual offenses and should apply to the video recordings made under Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act as well.
He explained that these video recordings can only be shared with the victim, which helps keep their identity safe even if the proceedings are recorded, Pracha argued.
He emphasized that Section 20 of the SC/ST Act takes priority over other laws.
After reviewing the arguments and the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Court stated that the term “all proceedings” in Section 15A(10) clearly encompasses bail proceedings, both in the special court and the High Court.
“In the present case, the language of the provision of Section 15A(10) is clear and admits of no ambiguity, thus, expression ‘all proceedings relating to the offences under this Act’ will include the bail proceedings before the Special Court, as well as, before the High Court in relation to the offences under the Act,” the Court said.
Regarding the protection of the victim’s identity, the Court noted that the SC/ST Act does not allow for the disclosure or sharing of such videos with anyone.
Section 15A(10) while providing that all proceedings under the Act shall be video recorded makes no reference to the dissemination of such recording to anyone, which means that the recording is to be preserved for the usage of Court,” the Court noted.
The single judge mentioned that if the recordings are to be shared with the victim, their lawyer, non-government organizations, or social workers, this can only happen with specific court orders.
As a result, the Court concluded that the victim’s identity and privacy can be protected while video recording bail proceedings under the SC/ST Act.
“Clearly, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of recording of the bail proceedings to protect the rights of the victims under Section 15A(10) of the Act on one hand and Section 228A of IPC and Section 23 of the POCSO Act on the other hand,” the single-judge underscored.
Thus, the provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act are mandatory and the present bail proceedings will have to be video recorded, the Court ordered.