E-Paper
HC upholds victim’s right to privacy in sensitive crimes
Right of a victim to remain anonymous and cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of right to information
Chandigarh
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday observed that the right of a victim to remain anonymous cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of right to information.
The high court dismissed a plea challenging its executive committee’s decision to restrict uploading of orders or case details (on the high court website) of sensitive matters relating to crimes against women, Juvenile Justice Act, matrimonial disputes.
“The question which arises in the present PIL is the inter play between two competing fundamental rights, i.e. right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and right to information, which is concomitant freedom of speech and expression,” said the court.
The PIL filed by an advocate had also challenged Section 73 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 366(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which prohibits publication of proceedings relating to cases involving sexual offences pending in trial court, without court’s permission.
It was prayed to quash the administrative order dated November 26, 2015, directing sessions judges in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, to hide names and not to upload daily orders/judgments on the National Grid in cases relating to matrimony, Juvenile Justice Act, Official Secrets Act, cases relating to Intelligence agencies, domestic violence, sexual offences against women and children etc.
While dismissing the plea, a division bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal said that the victims in crimes relating to women and juveniles belong to a special class of citizens who are the most vulnerable stakeholder in the entire transaction of crime and prosecution, and deserve “special treatment by making available certain protections and immunities in shape of imposing prohibition for disclosure of identity of the victim, to prevent the victim from suffering any harm to body, mind or reputation.”
The plea filed by Rohit Mehta, an advocate, stated that executive orders passed by the high court are like “gag orders”, implementing the principle of complete privacy.
He contended that right to information is a “concomitant” of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and has over-riding effect over right to privacy of a victim.
The division bench said that the right of a victim to remain incognito or anonymous is directly relatable to the very existence of the person and dignity of the victim. “If identity of the victim is disclosed especially in crimes against women/juveniles, then harm to the person and dignity of the victim/juvenile that may ensue would outweigh the injury caused to a stranger, whose right to know the identity of the victim is denied.” It thus stated that the right to information is subservient to right to life.
Speaking for the bench, chief justice Nagu said the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution is visible from the very terminology used as the Article commences with negative expression that “’no person shall be deprived of his life/personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law’, with no further fetters on its exercise.”
“The right to life and personal liberty is connected directly to the very existence of a human being. The life contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is not mere animal existence but a life of dignity, which the nature has provided to every human being. All other fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are by the right under Article 21,” noted the bench.
The bench further noted that the right to information is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency or morality or contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Thus, restrictions over right to information are much more pronounced than over the right to life under Article 21.
The Court thus held that a victim in crime relating to women/juveniles is entitled to special protection, as provided by different laws, including Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act and Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
