SC/ST Act Proceedings Even If Held In Open Court Must Be Video Recorded: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has clarified that it is mandatory to video record all proceedings, including bail proceedings, in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sarang V Kotwal court answered a reference by a single judge bench holding that the proceedings must be video recorded even if they are held in open court.

“It would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 even though the proceedings are held in open court...Hearing of a bail application under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is a 'judicial proceeding' as contemplated under section 15-A of the Atrocities Act.”

The reference arose out of differing opinions of two single judge benches in an appeal under Section 14A of the Act. The appellants were seeking release on bail in a case under section 306 read with 34 of IPC, section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, sections 3(1)(r),(s), (u), (za), (E) of the Atrocities Act and section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

During the course of the hearing, the original complainant contended that hearing of the appeal should be video recorded in view of Section 15A(10) of the Act. Justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu held that the proceedings should be recorded. However, the case subsequently came to listed before Justice Sadhana Jadhav, who disagreed with the earlier bench. Thus, the issue was referred to the division bench.

The central issue revolved around whether bail proceedings under section 14A of the Act fall within the ambit of “judicial proceedings”.

The court noted that the objective of the Act is to protect the rights of victims and ensuring effective implementation. The court opined that video recording of the proceedings relating to the offences under the Act would ensure public accountability in respect of those proceedings.

This will ensure that victims and witnesses have adequate briefing on the case and preparation for trial and the information would be available to the organizations and individuals who provide legal aid to the victim and their dependents, the court said.

“In many cases, the victims may not be fully aware of the legal procedures or their implications and, thus, in that case the video recording would facilitate all those who can help the victim to understand the nature of proceedings and details of the facts and the legal aspects of those cases. Thus, sub-section (10) of Section 15-A of the Atrocities Act does not operate in isolation but it encompasses the other provisions and it facilitates their effective implementation.”

The reference judgement held that bail proceeding is not judicial proceeding as defined in CrPC as it does not involve recording of evidence, especially when investigation is completed and the papers of the investigation are before the Court. With this reasoning, the reference judgment stated that in case of bail proceedings video recording was not mandatory.

However, the division bench disagreed with this view, observing that definition of judicial proceeding in CrPC is inclusive rather than exhaustive, and does not exclude any proceedings before the court.

The court noted that the language of Section 15-A(10) of the Act, mandates video recording of “all proceedings relating to offences under this Act”. Thus, the widest possible meaning will have to be given to this particular use of the words, the court held, adding that the term “all proceedings” encompasses bail proceedings.

As section 15-A(10) makes no reference to the necessity of framing of the rules, it has to operate whether the rules are framed or not, the court added. Thus, it concluded that section 15-A(10) of the Atrocities Act is mandatory and not directory.

The court said that this judgment applies prospectively, meaning it will impact future proceedings.

As per Section 21 of the Atrocities Act, it is the duty of the State Government to provide these facilities. Thus, the court directed State Government to equip all courts in Maharashtra with video recording facilities for cases under the Atrocities Act cases.

Until such facilities are provided, courts without video recording capabilities may proceed without it, especially when an accused's personal liberty is at stake, the court held.

Click Here To Read/Download Order