Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sathish Deepam vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200
WP No. 1651 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SATHISH DEEPAM
S/O D. RAMA PANIKAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT CHETHANA NAGARA
KAMPALA, SOMESHWARA
MANGALURU - 575 023
2. AKIHLA KARNATAKA JANA
JAGRUTHI VEDIKE TRUST (R)
A TRUST REGISTRED UNDER
THE TRUST ACT HAVING ITS
BRANCH OFFICE AT
H944R+89C, CAR STREET
KURUNJI BHAG, SULLIA
JATTIPALLA, D.K.
Digitally signed DISTRCT - 574 239
by VALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
MARIMUTHU CHANDRASHEKAR UCHIL
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. SRI. SUBRAMANYA SHETTY
S/O SRI. MOOKAMBIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KALAVARA SAVANTARA MANE
SALVADI, KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI - 576 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200
WP No. 1651 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 575 0001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT
3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
STATE BANK ROAD,
MANGALURU-575001
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
'A' BLOCK, RAJATADRI,
MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 104.
5. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
NEAR POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PANDESHWAR ROAD, PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OLD D.C. OFFICE ROAD,
BANNANJE CIRCLE, BANNANJE,
UDUPI - 576 101.
8. THE COMMISSIONER
MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION,
M.G.ROAD, LALBAGH,
MANGALURU, D.K.- 575 003.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200
WP No. 1651 of 2024
9. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PNACHAYATH, KOTTARA, MANGALURU
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006.
10. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH BRAHMAGIRI
UDUPI - 576 101.
11. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYATH
OLD KENT ROAD, ATTAVAR,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
12. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH
OLD KENT ROAD, ATTAVAR,
MANGALURU - 574 219.
13. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH
TALUK OFFICE ROAD,
BELTHANGADY,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
14. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH
COURT ROAD, PUTTUR,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.
15. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT
J.R. COLLEGE ROAD,
SRIRAMPETE, SULLIA JATTIPALLA,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239.
16. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH
CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD,
BANANJE, UDUPI - 576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 7,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200
WP No. 1651 of 2024
SRI SHARANJITH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R8, 9, 11 TO 16;
SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS
DATED 18.11.2023, 20.11.2023, 29.11.2023 AND 01.12.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO H
AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION THERETO & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The grievance of the petitioners is non-consideration of the representations at Annexures-A to H. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are individuals and petitioner No.2 is Trust. The petitioners, concerning non-implementation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 2 SCC 703], have made representations at Annexures- A to H before the respondent-authorities. Their further grievance is regarding non-implementation of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:35200 WP No. 1651 of 2024 Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019 at Annexure-M.
2. Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S.H. Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, Sri. Sharanjith Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8, 9, 11 to 16 and Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for R10.
3. Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the photographs and names of the victims in the criminal offences are displayed through flex/banners in the public places. It is submitted that such display is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra). Learned counsel would further submit that similar guidelines have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019. It is submitted that though several representations are made to the respondent-authorities, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:35200 WP No. 1651 of 2024 no action has been taken to prevent display of photograph/names of the victims or to remove flex/banners displaying the photographs and names of the victims. In conformity with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra), the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division has issued directions to all the State Governments for strict implementation of the guidelines. The non-compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions by the Government of India for strict compliance is a serious concern to be addressed by the respondent-authorities immediately.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that action has been taken in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra). He further submits that the competent authorities responsible for implementation of the guidelines are being directed to take necessary steps. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200 WP No. 1651 of 2024 He further submits that the grievances raised in the representations would be appropriately addressed within a reasonable time.
5. Though the petitioners have not raised any individual grievance, as the cause brought before this Court is non- implementation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra), the present writ petition is entertained. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under, "50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large.
50.2. In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind the name of the victim or her identity should not be disclosed even under the authorization of the next of kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure of her identity exist, which shall be decided by the competent authority, which at present is the Sessions Judge. 50.3 FIRs relating to offences under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-D, 376-DB or 376-E IPC and the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:35200 WP No. 1651 of 2024 offences under POCSO shall not be put in the public domain.
50.4. In case a victim files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, it is not necessary for the victim to disclose his/her identity and the appeal shall be dealt with in the manner laid down by law.
50.5. The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace these documents in all records which may be scrutinized in the public domain.
50.6. An application by the next of kin to authorize disclosure of identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner of except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court.
50.7. An application by the next of kin to authorize disclosure of identity of a dead victim or of a victim of unsound mind under Section 228-A(2)(c) IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until the Government acts under Section 228- A(1)(c) and lays down criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare institutions or organisations.
50.8. In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the interest of the child. 50.9. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one "One-Stop Centre" in every district within one year from today."
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:35200 WP No. 1651 of 2024
6. Apart from non-implementation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra) and the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019, this Court is also of the concern regarding erection of illegal flexes in whatever form. Any display in the public places without licence of the competent authority is illegal irrespective of the contents of the flexes. In that regard, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to take action pursuant to the representations at Annexures - A to H and implement the guidelines laid down in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra) and also the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE CR/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56