[ad_1]
MUMBAI: Observing the importance of an issue referred to a larger bench of video recording of proceedings
under the Atrocities Act, Bombay high court recently requested the Additional Solicitor General to address the court on it.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sarang Kotwal said, “Having regard to the importance of the issues which have been referred for decision to this Bench, we request the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to address the Court on the next date.We also request the learnedAdvocate General to extend his assistance in the matter.”
The bench also appointed advocate Mayur Khandeparker as an amicus curiae (friend of court) to assist as well.
A single Judge bench of then Justice Sadhana Jadhav while granting bail in August 2019 to three doctors accused under the special Act and of abetting the May 2019 suicide of their junior Dr Payal Tadvi at Nair hospital, had referred to a larger bench three legal issues that arose.
The issue concerns provisions of video recording of proceedings under section 15 (A)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act that deals with victims’ and witnesses’ rights. It says, “all proceedings relating to offences under this Act shall be video recorded.’’
At the trio’s bail plea, the issue of video recording was raised by Gunratan Sadavarte lawyer for Abeda Tadvi, mother of Dr Tadvi. He had intervened and said the provision contemplating video recording of the judicial proceeding under the special law was “mandatory’’ and “every proceeding, including that connected with the bail, should be video recorded.’’
A senior counsel Aabad Ponda for the accused doctors, said the provision may apply at the trial stage, not for bail hearings.
A single Judge bench of then former Justice Dama Naidu who first heard the bail plea had however in a conflicting view held that “the proceedings ought to be video recorded’’ as it is “the statutory imperative.’’ The hearing continued to be video recorded when the bail plea came up later before Justice Jadhav.
Justice Jadhav said, “In my opinion, the reason to record proceeding is to protect the victim and witnesses, whereas the sanctity of the proceeding is protected by the court. Protecting sanctity of proceedings is a facet of delivering justice, since the public at large would not be able to differentiate between admissible and inadmissible evidence.’’ She said the court proceedings are sacred and “cannot be diminished to the perils of public opinion.’’ She also had observed that “It is also to be borne in mind that recording of court proceedings may take a different turn when the proceedings are being recorded. The texture of the whole process would bring in artificiality… In case of video recording, the participation of the court to elicit truth would be minimal and therefore not effective.’’
Justice Jadhav held that a bail hearing doesn’t amount to “proceeding’’ as contemplated in the Act and hence requires no video recording, but since there were conflicting views, she referred the issue to the larger bench observing that the “intention of the Legislature’’ in enacting this Special Provision was not clarified in the Statute.
Justice Jadhav said the larger bench must decide whether it would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Act especially when held in open court, its objective, also whether bail hearings are a judicial proceeding requiring video recording and whether in the absence of rules under the Act or a scheme can the section be implemented?
The next hearing will be on December 15.
under the Atrocities Act, Bombay high court recently requested the Additional Solicitor General to address the court on it.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sarang Kotwal said, “Having regard to the importance of the issues which have been referred for decision to this Bench, we request the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to address the Court on the next date.We also request the learnedAdvocate General to extend his assistance in the matter.”
The bench also appointed advocate Mayur Khandeparker as an amicus curiae (friend of court) to assist as well.
A single Judge bench of then Justice Sadhana Jadhav while granting bail in August 2019 to three doctors accused under the special Act and of abetting the May 2019 suicide of their junior Dr Payal Tadvi at Nair hospital, had referred to a larger bench three legal issues that arose.
The issue concerns provisions of video recording of proceedings under section 15 (A)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act that deals with victims’ and witnesses’ rights. It says, “all proceedings relating to offences under this Act shall be video recorded.’’
At the trio’s bail plea, the issue of video recording was raised by Gunratan Sadavarte lawyer for Abeda Tadvi, mother of Dr Tadvi. He had intervened and said the provision contemplating video recording of the judicial proceeding under the special law was “mandatory’’ and “every proceeding, including that connected with the bail, should be video recorded.’’
A senior counsel Aabad Ponda for the accused doctors, said the provision may apply at the trial stage, not for bail hearings.
A single Judge bench of then former Justice Dama Naidu who first heard the bail plea had however in a conflicting view held that “the proceedings ought to be video recorded’’ as it is “the statutory imperative.’’ The hearing continued to be video recorded when the bail plea came up later before Justice Jadhav.
Justice Jadhav said, “In my opinion, the reason to record proceeding is to protect the victim and witnesses, whereas the sanctity of the proceeding is protected by the court. Protecting sanctity of proceedings is a facet of delivering justice, since the public at large would not be able to differentiate between admissible and inadmissible evidence.’’ She said the court proceedings are sacred and “cannot be diminished to the perils of public opinion.’’ She also had observed that “It is also to be borne in mind that recording of court proceedings may take a different turn when the proceedings are being recorded. The texture of the whole process would bring in artificiality… In case of video recording, the participation of the court to elicit truth would be minimal and therefore not effective.’’
Justice Jadhav held that a bail hearing doesn’t amount to “proceeding’’ as contemplated in the Act and hence requires no video recording, but since there were conflicting views, she referred the issue to the larger bench observing that the “intention of the Legislature’’ in enacting this Special Provision was not clarified in the Statute.
Justice Jadhav said the larger bench must decide whether it would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Act especially when held in open court, its objective, also whether bail hearings are a judicial proceeding requiring video recording and whether in the absence of rules under the Act or a scheme can the section be implemented?
The next hearing will be on December 15.
[ad_2]
Source link
