May Infringe Confidentiality Mandate: Delhi High Court Upholds JJB Order Refusing Copy Of Acquittal Order To Father Of Minor Rape Victim

The Petition before the High Court was filed by the father of an alleged victim of a sexual assault, who was about six years of age at the relevant time. The petition also raised broader concerns relating to the functioning of the criminal justice system in cases involving sexual assault, particularly those concerning child victims.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Therefore, it is manifest from the above that where no right of appeal exists in law, no corresponding enforceable right to seek a certified copy of the order for the purpose of challenge can be claimed, particularly when such disclosure may also infringe the confidentiality mandate under Section 21 of the JJ Act, 2000. In the present case, the juvenile-accused stood acquitted by the learned JJ Board–II vide order dated 19.02.2015. In view of the decision of this Court in X Minor through Father Natural Guardian v. State & Ors. (supra), and in view of the fact that the victim or her father does not possess a right to challenge the order of acquittal, the refusal by the learned JJ Board-II vide order dated 24.02.2015, to provide a copy of the order of acquittal to the petitioner no. 2, therefore, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, prayer (a) of the present petition is unmerited and is hereby declined.”

Advocate Charu Walikhanna represented the Petitioner while ASC Rupali Bandhopadhy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On the father’s complaint, an FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 307 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said case was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board as the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law. The JJ Board–II acquitted the juvenile accused. The first petitioner is a society, which claims to have been authorised to support the second Petitioner, the father of the victim, and to institute the present proceedings on his behalf. The principal grievance raised before the Court was that neither the victim nor her father (petitioner) was supplied a copy of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, despite repeated efforts.

The petitioners, through the medium of the instant petition, sought a copy of the order of the JJB, including a copy of the inquiry record of the case to the Petitioner father. The petitioner sought appointment of a female member on JJB II and formulation of standards and efficacious mechanisms for delivery of services for sexual assault victim/survivors, including the right to receive counselling support, the right to receive protection, as well as the right to compensation etc.

Reasoning

Upon examination of the record of the case, the Bench noted that vide a notification dated May 19, 2005, a female member had already been appointed to the JJ Board–II. Consequently, the prayer for appointment, according to the Bench, did not survive for consideration and had become infructuous.

On the aspect of production of a copy of the order, the Bench explained that where no right of appeal exists in law, no corresponding enforceable right to seek a certified copy of the order for the purpose of challenge can be claimed. Dealing with the aspect of directions for the formulation of institutional mechanisms, the Bench noticed that several of the concerns articulated by the petitioners had already been the subject matter of judicial decisions in the past.

Considering the prayer seeking formulation of an efficacious mechanism for the grant and disbursement of compensation to victims of sexual assault, the Bench noted that a detailed statutory framework is already in existence. The Bench mentioned that the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, initially notified in 2011, was subsequently modified in 2015 and thereafter comprehensively updated in 2018. The Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018, read with the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, lays down the procedure, eligibility, timelines, and quantum for grant of interim as well as final compensation.

The Bench found one issue to be of significance. It was brought to the Court’s notice that, unlike regular criminal courts, the JJ Boards did not have dedicated vulnerable witness rooms for minor victims of sexual assault. On a perusal of the individual replies submitted by all the JJ Boards, the Bench noted that a structured and sensitive protocol was presently being followed by the JJ Boards in Delhi while recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses, including child victims of sexual offences. The statements of such victims are recorded in camera in designated Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres, to ensure protection of their privacy and identity. The presence of a guardian, RCC advocate and support person is secured, and adequate safeguards are in place to prevent any direct or indirect contact between the victim and the child in conflict with the law.

As per the Bench, the infrastructure of the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres, including separate entry and exit points, waiting areas, counselling spaces and video-conferencing facilities, also reflects adherence to the guidelines issued by the Court and the directions of the Supreme Court. It was noticed by the Bench that such centres are available and functional across all JJ Boards in Delhi, which addresses the concern that was raised before this Court during the course of arguments.

“In view of the above, the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the non-availability of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres in the JJ Boards does not survive for further”, it held while further adding, “In case the petitioner notices any infrastructural gaps or other related issues in the JJ Boards, it may file an appropriate representation or petition in that regard, if so advised, in accordance with law before the appropriate Bench.”

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition with the aforementioned directions.

Cause Title: Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11334)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Charu Walikhanna

Respondent: ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya, Advocates Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta

Click here to read/download Order