Victim didn’t seek it, says SC, rejects Tarun Tejpal plea for in-camera hearing

Hearing Tejpal’s plea, a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said the object of CrPC Section 327, which empowers a court to hold its proceedings in camera, is to protect the victim’s rights. “Ultimately, the objective of Section 327 is to protect rights of the victim,” the CJI noted. “The idea is to protect the victim so that she can depose fearlessly. When somebody who is an accused…will they have the remedy when the victim does not demand (in-camera hearing)?”

CJI Chandrachud said the relevant provision in CrPC says that “the inquiry leading up to the trial will be in camera. We have crossed that stage. There is no vested right. The accused has no right to demand.”

Appearing for Tejpal, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the allegations against his client “are prima facie false”. He argued, “My reputation is at stake… WhatsApp messages, etc, will be revealed. Identity of the victim will also be released. It’s not in anybody’s interest. After K S Puttaswamy (privacy judgment), this has to be considered. There is privacy, reputation involved.”

As the bench did not appear inclined to grant the relief, Sibal pointed out that HC had said the hearing will be conducted via virtual mode and urged the bench to at least direct that it will be held physically, and not virtually.

The SC, however, left it to HC to decide whether the hearing should be conducted physically or in virtual mode.