Court Refuses to Provide Acquittal Order Copy to Victim's Family, Citing Confidentiality Mandates
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) decision to maintain the confidentiality of its acquittal order in a sensitive case involving a juvenile accused of sexual assault. The case, Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar v. State of NCT of Delhi, was presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, who emphasized the importance of protecting the privacy and dignity of child victims and juveniles in conflict with the law.
The petitioners, including the father of the alleged six-year-old victim, sought several reliefs including a copy of the acquittal order, the formulation of mechanisms for victim support services, and broader legislative reforms. However, the court declined these requests, reinforcing the confidentiality requirement under Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This provision prohibits the disclosure of any information that could identify the juvenile, thereby protecting their future prospects.
The court also addressed the broader concerns raised by the petitioners. It noted that comprehensive frameworks, such as the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018, are already in place to support victims of sexual assault, ensuring timely compensation and legal assistance. Previous judicial directives, notably in the case of Khem Chand v. State (NCT of Delhi), have mandated immediate institutional support for victims, which the court reiterated.
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the availability and functionality of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs) across Juvenile Justice Boards in Delhi. These centres are crucial for maintaining the privacy and dignity of child victims during proceedings. The court assured that these facilities align with the guidelines set by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, ensuring a sensitive and structured approach to handling vulnerable witnesses.
While rejecting the petitioners' plea for legislative and policy reforms, the court clarified that such measures fall within the legislative and executive domains, beyond the scope of the individual case. The judgment underscores the balance between protecting juvenile privacy and ensuring victim support within the legal framework.
The case reflects the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the rights of juveniles and victims, while also upholding existing legal provisions designed to protect the most vulnerable.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice - Victims of sexual assault before Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) are entitled to privacy and dignity protections, including structured protocols and the use of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs) for in-camera recording of evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 21 and 91, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Section 21, Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018.
