‘Just because you are Prajwal Revanna, law can’t be bent for you’: Karnataka High Court reiterates stand on privacy of victims

Prajwal Revanna sought copies of digital evidence purportedly found in a seized mobile phone belonging to his driver and collected by the Karnataka SIT. Although Revanna’s counsel argued that the images and digital evidence he wished to examine were not necessarily obscene, the court rejected this argument, stating, “The images here, even of the victim, are obscene. Just because you are Prajwal Revanna, the law can’t be bent for you,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said.

“Anything pertaining to this case under Section 376 (pertaining to alleged rape of a domestic help) under you, you’ll get. But if you are trying to extract material relating to all the women you have had escapades with, that can’t be permitted … When they (other women/victims) are not giving any statements against you, why do you want to invade their privacy? … We can’t allow invasion of their privacy,” Justice Nagaprasanna added.

The allegations against Prajwal Revanna emerged after videos recorded by the former MP depicting the alleged sexual assault of several women were circulated in various places, including social media. These private videos were circulated ahead of the Lok Sabha elections last year for the Hassan seat, where Prajwal Revanna was the sitting National Democratic Alliance (NDA) candidate.

During the previous hearing on the matter on January 9, Additional Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha argued that material relating to evidence in the cases filed against Revanna had been shared. It was asserted that sharing the entirety of the digital evidence would violate the privacy of multiple victims who were not part of these cases, as over 15,000 images and 2,000 videos were involved. He reiterated this stand during the proceedings this Thursday, asserting that the present petition was merely to delay the proceedings.

Justice M Nagaprasanna on Thursday orally inquired as to why the privacy of the other victims had to be invaded, considering that they had given no statements against Revanna. Justice Nagaprasanna also reiterated his prior statement on January 9 that whatever copies of evidence Revanna is entitled to as per Section 207 of the CrPC, the same had to be provided only in the context of the Supreme Court precedent in the case of P Gopalkrishna v State of Kerala, which rules on the victim’s right to privacy.

The bench disposed of the petition, allowing the inspection of digital evidence only in the present case against Prajwal Revanna. The framing of charges in the case by the trial court was earlier put on hold until the disposal of this petition.