Video recording of bail proceedings under SC/ST Act mandatory even for sexual offences: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that all proceedings including bail proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (SC/ST Act) should be video graphed even if the alleged offences involve sexual crimes against women and children [Laxmi Narayan vs. State NCT of Delhi]..Single-judge Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates the video recording of proceedings, does not carve out any exception as regards sexual offences. "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 was booked for 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 against him was lodged by the victim girl's father (complainant).The accused moved a bail application before the Patiala House Court which was rejected. Subsequently, he moved the Delhi High Court. .During the bail hearings, advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the complainant-father, submitted that in view of Section 15A (10) of the Act, all proceedings relating to offences under the Act, including the present one, have to be video recorded.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.Further, as some of the offences invoked in the present case are under the SC/ST Act as well, the provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act will apply to the present bail proceedings and it is obligatory to video record the same.He pointed out that Section 15A of the SC/ST Act is titled ‘Rights of victim and witnesses’ and thus, it is the right of a victim to seek video recording of the proceedings and the same needs to be protected.Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ritesh Kumar Bahri opposed Pracha's argument. He said that the Supreme Court had laid down in the case of Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India that no person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc., the name of the victim under the POCSO Act or even disclose any remote fact which could lead to the victim being identified or which could make her identity known to public.He also referred to Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A IPC, which penalises the disclosure of the identity of the victim of sexual offences. He said that these provisions would override Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act.Since the bail proceedings in the present case involved offences under the POCSO Act, the same should not be video recorded, he maintained.A similar argument was advanced by the counsel for the accused.Pracha rebutted this stance by arguing that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act speaks only of video recording of the proceedings and does not, at all, say anything about the publication of video recording, or even the supply of such recording to any person. Further, he submitted Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A IPC are in the nature of safeguards to protect the identity of the victim of sexual offence, which would apply with equal force to the video recordings under Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act.He explained that such video recording cannot be provided to any person other than the victim. In this way, the identity of the victim remains protected even if the proceedings are video recorded, Pracha contended. Pertinently, he argued that Section 20 of the SC/ST Act provides for an overriding effect over other laws..The Court, after considering the arguments and examining the provisions of the SC/ST Act, said that the reference to the expression 'all proceedings’ under Section 15A(10) will undoubtedly include the ‘proceedings’ in respect of bail, both before 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.With regard to the protection of the identity of the victim, the Court said that the SC/ST Act does not provide for the disclosure or dissemination of such video to 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.If at all such recording is to be provided to the victim or his/her advocate or to non-government organisations, or social workers, it need not be given without specific court orders, the single-judge added.Thus, the Court concluded that the identity and anonymity of the victim can be safeguarded 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..Advocates Ravi Mehta, Priyanka Singh, Rajat Kanojia, Rahul Kumar Saxena, Nikha Kanojia, Satpal Yadav and Priyank Chauhan appeared for the accused. Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Jatin Bhatt, RHA Sikander, Sanawar and Mohd. Shameem appeared for the victim.Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri appeared for the State NCT of Delhi. .[Read Order]