The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by the survivor in the actor assault case involving actor Dileep, seeking a court-monitored investigation into the change in the hash value of the memory card containing the visuals of the assault kept in the custody of the lower court.
Justice K. Babu while reserving the judgment also appointed Ranjith Marar, High Court lawyer, as amicus curiae in the case. The amicus curiae has been directed to give written suggestions on the guidelines to be issued on preventing unauthorised access to sexually explicit materials kept in the custody of courts.
The survivor in her petition sought a directive to the police to register a case into the change in the hash value of the memory card and find out the persons who had made unauthorised access to the memory card.
Illegal access
During the hearing, counsel for the survivor submitted that it had been established by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory report that the hash value had been changed due to illegal access while in the custody of the court. He submitted that the memory card had been accessed three times. In fact, it constituted a prima facie material to make out a cognisable and separate offence. Therefore, a case should be registered and investigation conducted to bring to book those who had accessed it.
If somebody had illegally accessed the videos, taken out and viewed them, the fundamental right of the petitioner to privacy had been violated. The court should protect the petitioner’s fundamental right to privacy and should take the strictest action against those who had accessed it. The persons who had illegally accessed it had violated the petitioners right to privacy. The faith of the citizen in the judicial administration would be affected if sexually explicit videos were taken out while under the custody of the court.
The counsel further submitted that no one should be allowed to make illegal access to any document in the custody of the court. It was more so in case of sealed videos of sexual assault on the petitioner. The petitioner was very distressed that the videos had been accessed by somebody without authorisation while the memory card was in the custody of the court. In fact, a cognisable offence had been made out. Normally, the police would have registered a case. But the police were unable to register a case here because the unauthorised access took place when it was under the custody of the court.
