Savvy Thakur
Published on: October 23, 2022 at 18:24 IST
On Friday, the survivor of the Kerala actor sexual assault case’s petition to move the trial to another court was denied by the Supreme Court.
The Kerala High Court’s decision to reject the survivor’s transfer plea was upheld by a bench led by Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar. The survivor approached the Court, claiming that the trial court judge had been biased.
The bench stated orally, “We cannot allow all such petitions alleging bias; judges will not be able to discharge their duties without fear and favor then.”
The bench noted that granting the transfer request would set a “bad precedent.” The bench added that the High Court must make the final decision in such cases.
The petitioner’s attorney, Senior Advocate R. Basant, was questioned by the bench about any specific instances of bias.
During cross-examination, Basant argued, the survivor was permitted to be questioned in an inappropriate manner.
The senior attorney also mentioned the judge’s refusal to allow a forensic investigation into the change in the memory card’s hash value—which is said to contain images of the crime. He mentioned that two Special Public Prosecutors have left the case due to the hostile environment.
The bench made the observation that such instances cannot be considered to demonstrate bias, despite Basant’s claim that his only concern is to ensure a fair trial.
If such requests are granted, the bench also expressed concern about the demoralizing effect on the subordinate courts.
The bench inquired as to whether there was any evidence to suggest that the judge was not performing their duties appropriately.
Basant argued that records of a conversation with a lawyer from the phone of the accused actor Dileep were obtained, relating to a case involving the trial judge’s husband.
The bench, on the other hand, inquired as to how it could be connected to the presiding judge’s actions.
The bench inquired, “Are there any instances of the judge contacting the accused, either directly or indirectly?”
“No subordinate judge wants to hear criminal cases in the current environment.” Justice Rastogi made the observation that “any observation they make is used against them.”
For actor Dileep, who is being tried as the alleged chief conspirator, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi stated that the survivor’s attempt was to delay the trial. Rohatgi asked the bench to charge the petition a lot of money.
Dileep has submitted a separate petition to the Supreme Court in an effort to have the case resolved as soon as possible.
The trial must be concluded by January 30, 2023, preferably, as directed by the Supreme Court.
The special leave petition was filed against the High Court’s order of September 22 that dismissed the survivor’s plea on the grounds that there was no evidence of the judge’s personal bias.
“After having examined all the relevant aspects, I am of the firm view that the petitioner’s apprehensions regarding possible interference in the fair trial are not reasonable,” Justice Ziyad Rahman wrote in his order.
The petitioner’s integrity was not in question, but the High Court noted that she might have been the target of “wrong perceptions and aspersions created by the media” regarding the case.
The media debates regarding the case were also criticized by the High Court, which stated that the media was anticipating that the Courts would issue orders based on their preconceived declarations.
The case involves the sexual assault and kidnapping of a female actor in the Kochi suburbs in February 2017.