Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court ruled that video recording of bail proceedings is mandatory under Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, including cases involving sexual offences. The court clarified that the provision does not allow for any exceptions concerning such crimes.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ruled that all proceedings, including bail hearings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), must be video recorded, even in cases involving sexual crimes against women and children.
Justice Vikas Mahajan emphasized that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act mandates video recording without exceptions for sexual offences.
The court noted,
“The legislature has not carved out any exception in Section 15A(10) for sexual offences punishable under Section 3(1)(w) and Section 3(2)(va). It is clear that the legislature intended compliance with Section 15A(10) even in cases under the Act and the IPC involving female victims, whose identities must be protected under the law,”
The Delhi High Court hearing a bail petition filed by Laxmi Narayan, who accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl from a Scheduled Caste community. Narayan has been charged under various sections, including rape (Section 376) and murder (Section 302) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and sexual atrocities against a woman under the SC/ST Act.
The complaint was lodged by the victim’s father, who accused Narayan of the heinous crimes. After his bail application was rejected by the Patiala House Court, Narayan approached the Delhi High Court.
During the bail hearings, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing the victim’s father, argued that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act mandates video recording for all proceedings related to offences under the Act, including this case. He contended that since the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, he is considered a “victim” under Section 2(1)(ec) of the SC/ST Act, thus making it necessary for the proceedings to be recorded.
Pracha further emphasized that Section 15A of the SC/ST Act outlines the “Rights of victim and witnesses,” asserting that video recording of the proceedings is a right that should be upheld to protect the victim’s interests.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ritesh Kumar Bahri opposed Advocate Mehmood Pracha’s argument regarding the mandatory video recording of bail proceedings. Bahri cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India, stating that under the POCSO Act, no individual may print or publish details that could reveal the identity of the victim.
He further referenced Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC, both of which criminalize the disclosure of a sexual offence victim’s identity, arguing that these provisions override Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act. Bahri maintained that, given the involvement of POCSO offences in this case, the bail proceedings should not be video recorded.
Counsel for the accused supported Bahri’s stance. In response, Pracha argued that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act only mandates video recording of proceedings, without stipulating the publication or distribution of the recordings. He emphasized that Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC serve to protect the victim’s identity and would equally apply to any video recordings made under Section 15A(10).
He explained that the video recordings would be safeguarded and not shared without court orders, thus preserving the victim’s anonymity.
The court, after reviewing the arguments, agreed that,
“The phrase all proceedings in Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act includes bail proceedings.”
The court stated,
“The language of Section 15A(10) is clear and admits of no ambiguity,”
It further clarified that the SC/ST Act does not allow for the disclosure of video recordings, ensuring that they are used solely for court purposes. The court noted that any sharing of these recordings would require specific court orders, thereby maintaining the victim’s privacy.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court: Public View Required for Offenses Under SC/ST Act
The court concluded that there is no conflict between the video recording of bail proceedings under Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act and the protective provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act.
The court emphasized, ordering that the bail proceedings be video recorded,
“The provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act are mandatory,”
Advocates Ravi Mehta, Priyanka Singh, and others appeared for the accused, while Mehmood Pracha and his team represented the victim. APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri appeared for the State NCT of Delhi.