All Proceedings Under SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act Including Those Seeking Registration Of FIR Must Be Video Recorded: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court ruled that every legal proceeding under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act), including appeals and proceedings related to the registration of a first information report (FIR) under the Act, must be video recorded.
This decision builds on a prior judgment by the High Court in the case of Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra. In that case, the court had established that the term 'any proceeding' under the SC/ST Act includes all stages of the legal process. The court addressed an interim application requesting that the appeal proceedings be recorded on video.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne said, “Since the Division Bench of this Court has held that “any proceeding” relating to the SC & ST Act need to be video recorded, in my view, even a proceeding seeking registration of FIR would be covered by the expression ‘any proceeding’ used by Division Bench in paragraph 34(2) of the judgment in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja (supra). In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct video recording hearing of the Criminal Appeal considering the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja (supra).”
The Court affirmed that this interpretation extends to appeal proceedings seeking the registration of an FIR.
Advocate Altaf Khan appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Yugandhara Khanwilkar appeared for the Respondents.
The applicants argued that recording the appeal was necessary to comply with the precedent set in Ahuja. They emphasized that the Division Bench’s interpretation in that case encompassed all legal stages related to the SC/ST Act, including appeals.
The opposing counsel argued that since no formal offence under the SC/ST Act had been registered at the appeal stage, the requirement for video recording should not apply. They contended that the appeal was not directly related to an offence under the Act. However, the Court rejected this argument.
The Court ruled in favor of the applicants, emphasizing that the Division Bench's interpretation in the Ahuja case required video recording of all proceedings related to the SC/ST Act, including those seeking FIR registration.
Cause Title: Vijay Pundlik Sapkale & Anr. v. Varsha Aadesh Pradhan & Ors.
Appellants: Advocates Altaf Khan, Akash Mangalgi, and Mohan Chavan
Respondents: Advocate Yugandhara Khanwilkar, Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K Gajare-Dhumal
Click here to read/download Order
