Delhi High Court: Video Recording of Bail Proceedings Mandatory Under SC/ST Act, Even in Sexual Offence Cases

Delhi High Court: Video Recording of Bail Proceedings Mandatory Under SC/ST Act, Even in Sexual Offence Cases

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court held that video recording of bail proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is mandatory, even in cases involving sexual offences. The ruling was issued by Justice Vikas Mahajan while hearing the bail application of Laxmi Narayan, the accused in a highly sensitive Delhi minor rape and murder case. The case involved provisions from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the SC/ST Act.

Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The primary focus of the judgment was on Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates that all proceedings under the Act, including bail hearings, must be video recorded. This provision is in place to protect the rights of victims, especially those belonging to marginalized communities, who are more vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment during legal proceedings.

Justice Mahajan clarified that there is no inconsistency between this provision and other laws aimed at protecting the privacy and identity of victims of sexual offences. Therefore, the court ruled that the bail proceedings in the case at hand would be video recorded in compliance with Section 15A(10).

Section 15A(10): Victims' Rights and Protection

Section 15A of the SC/ST Act outlines the rights and protections available to victims and witnesses of atrocities. Sub-section 15A(10) explicitly mandates the video recording of all proceedings, including bail, to ensure transparency and safeguard the interests of the victim. The section emphasizes the need for the judiciary to be sensitive to the rights of victims, especially from marginalized communities, during legal proceedings. 

In the present case, the complainant, whose minor daughter was raped and murdered, belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, which qualifies him as a "victim" under Section 2(1)(ec) of the SC/ST Act. This provision defines a victim as any individual who has suffered physical, mental, psychological, emotional, or monetary harm due to an atrocity committed under the Act.

Section 228A IPC: Protection of Identity of Victims of Sexual Offences

One of the concerns raised during the hearing was the potential conflict between Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act and Section 228A of the IPC. Section 228A IPC strictly prohibits the disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences, including through print, electronic, and social media. Violating this section is a criminal offence, and its purpose is to protect the dignity and privacy of victims, ensuring that their identities are not publicly exposed.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Ritesh Kumar Bahri, argued that video recording of the proceedings could conflict with Section 228A, as it might inadvertently lead to the identification of the victim. The APP cited Supreme Court rulings that support the non-disclosure of a victim's identity in sexual offence cases.

However, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing the complainant, countered this by asserting that video recordings would not be accessible to the general public and would be provided only to the victim. Therefore, the identity of the victim would remain protected, and there was no conflict between the provisions.

Section 23 of the POCSO Act: Safeguarding Minors' Privacy

Another critical provision discussed during the proceedings was Section 23 of the POCSO Act. This section prohibits the disclosure of the identity of child victims involved in sexual offences, similar to the protection offered under Section 228A IPC. The section ensures that minors' identities are kept confidential throughout legal proceedings, media reporting, and public discussions.

The prosecutor argued that since the present case involved a minor victim under the POCSO Act, Section 23 should override Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, preventing any video recording of the bail proceedings.

However, the court found no inconsistency between these laws. The court observed that the video recording could be conducted in a manner that protects the identity of the victim, ensuring compliance with both Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act and Section 23 of the POCSO Act.

Section 439 CrPC: Regular Bail Application

The bail application in question was filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which provides the framework for regular bail in cases involving serious offences. The petitioner had previously applied for bail, which was rejected by the Patiala House Courts in June 2023. The current petition was a follow-up application seeking relief under the same provision.

Section 439 CrPC allows the High Court or a Court of Session to grant bail to an accused person, even in serious cases such as murder and rape, as long as the court deems fit based on the circumstances.

No Conflict Between the Provisions: Delhi HC's Ruling

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court concluded that there was no conflict between Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act and the privacy protections offered by Section 228A IPC and Section 23 of the POCSO Act. The court ruled that video recording of the bail proceedings could be conducted while ensuring that the victim's identity remains protected.

The court clarified that the legislature's intent behind Section 15A(10) was to ensure transparency in cases involving atrocities under the SC/ST Act, even if the offences include sexual crimes. The High Court directed that the video recording of the bail proceedings must proceed in compliance with these provisions.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the legal protections available to marginalized communities under the SC/ST Act while also safeguarding the rights of victims of sexual offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. By mandating the video recording of bail proceedings, the court seeks to balance transparency in judicial processes with the protection of victims' identities. 

This judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving sexual offences under the SC/ST Act, where video recording of bail proceedings will be mandatory while ensuring that the privacy of victims is respected.