[BREAKING] Bombay High Court rejects Tarun Tejpal plea for in-camera hearing in sexual assault case

The Bombay High Court at Goa on Wednesday rejected an application filed by former editor of Tehelka magazine, Tarun Tejpal seeking in-camera hearing of the appeal filed by State of Goa against Tejpal's acquittal in a sexual assault case. .A Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and MS Jawalkar heard the application today at length before rejecting the same.The Bench indicated that it will pronounce the detailed order shortly..Tejpal had sought in-camera hearing citing Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the recent order of Justice Gautam Patel of Bombay High Court giving directions for in-camera hearing in cases under Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act. .The application was filed by Tejpal after the State of Goa appealed to the High Court challenging Tejpal's acquittal by a sessions court in the sexual assault case filed by his subordinate employee. .Senior Advocate Amit Desai appearing for Tejpal, submitted that every proceeding in the present case, including pre-trial applications, and hearings before High Court against lower court orders, were heard in-camera. In light of this, the case should be continued to be heard in-camera even at appeal stage, it was contended..His submission was that every party has a right to place forth his case in the best possible manner. It would be unfair if lawyers have to curtail their submissions in view of the fact that some publication will publish something if due care is not taken.He also added that Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is no more just a statutory obligation, but has become a fundamental right. .Desai also pleaded that the application was being filed for the protection of reputation of the accused as well as the victim. So there was no prejudice that could possibly be caused if the application is allowed. .Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for State of Goa, opposed the application. He pointed out that while the trial could be held in-camera, once the verdict of the trial was out, the judgment, the evidence all became part of public domain. .He argued that after the final verdict, there was a period of 3 months to challenge the same in appeal. There is no statutory obligation stopping a party from speaking on the case, till the appeal is filed. Hence, a party cannot pray for in-camera hearing after an appeal is filed, he submitted..After hearing both counsel for over an hour, the Bench hearing the matter through video conference, pronounced its verdict rejecting the application.”For reasons to be pronounced separately, the application is hereby rejected”, the Bench said. .When the Court asked the counsel when they want to proceed with the submissions seeking leave to appeal, Desai informed the Court that they will be challenging the present order rejecting the prayer for in-camera hearing. The Court, therefore, listed the appeal for directions on December 6, 2021. .[Read order]