‘Video recording of bail hearings under SC/ST Act must even for sex offences’: Delhi High Court

admin

'Video recording of bail hearings under SC/ST Act must even for sex offences': Delhi High Court



NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that all proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including bail hearings, must be video recorded, even in cases involving sexual crimes against women and children.The HC emphasised that Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates video recording, does not provide any exception for sexual offences.Justice Vikas Mahajan, in a single-judge bench, highlighted that the legislature did not intend to exclude sexual offences from the purview of video recording requirements under Section 15A(10).The ruling came while hearing a bail plea from Laxmi Narayan, accused of the rape and murder of a minor girl.The case involved charges under the IPC, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, and the SC/ST Act. The victim’s father argued that Section 15A(10) mandated the video recording of all proceedings under the SC/ST Act.Opposing this, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that Section 23 of the Pocso Act and Section 228A of IPC, which protect the identity of sexual offence victims, should override the video recording provision.However, the HC clarified that video recording the proceedings did not imply public dissemination of the footage, and such recordings could be safeguarded to protect the victim’s identity. The court ruled that the provisions of Section 15A(10) were mandatory and must be followed, while also ensuring that the identity of the victim remains protected.“The upshot of the above discussion is that the provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act are mandatory and the present bail proceedings will have to be video recorded. It is, however, clarified that this judgment will not affect the cases in which proceedings in terms of Section 15A(10) of the Act have not been video recorded and it will take effect prospectively,” read the court order.



Source link