Connect with us
Friday,07-August-2026
Breaking News

Crime

Gag on POSH cases: After 6 months, Bombay HC says it’s ‘case specific’

Published

on

Nearly six months after a complete ‘gag’ order to media reporting and uploading of judgements on cases pertaining to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013, the Bombay High Court has clarified that it was ‘case specific’ and not applicable to all matters under the (POSH) act.

Justice G.S. Patel, who had passed the earlier order of September 24, 2021, acknowledged that “it remained to be specifically noted in that order that “the directions had to be confined” to that particular case and could not have any wider or larger applicability.

Justice Patil further noted that any such rules of general applicability would have to be approved by the full court, and a single judge hearing a particular matter within his rostered assignment has “no authority or jurisdiction to issue any rules binding the entire court”.

“It is only the full court or the Chief Justice which or who can do that. Very possibly, such rules might even have been required to be notified in the official gazette. None of this was in contemplation at any time on September 24, 2021,” Justice Patil added.

The clarifications came on Thursday while disposing an intervention application filed by the Forum Against Oppression of Women under the impressions that the guidelines were general in nature.

FAOW senior advocate Indira Jaisingh contended that these guidelines were not only against the letter and spirit of the POSH Act, but also contrary to the very concept of open courts, which are an essential aspect of judicial determinations globally, and now it was being cited by men in other cases.

In the previous order (IANS – Sept 27, 2021), Justice Patel had said all such matters shall be heard either “in camera” or in the judge’s chambers, orders cannot be passed in open court, or uploaded on the high court’s official website, and the media has been prohibited from reporting the proceedings or the verdicts without the court’s permission.

Virtually making POSH cases at par with the existing guidelines in rape cases, the order warned that violation of the same or publishing the concerned party’s names or other details, even if in the public domain, would be treated as contempt of court.

He observed that since there are no set guidelines for such matters, his initial order would set a working protocol for the future orders, hearings, case file management, and would be revised or modified, as needed.

The ‘minimum guidelines’ issued dealt with the format of filing orders in POSH cases, the filing protocols, grant of access by the registry, hearings, directions to the certified copy department, public access, breach, etc.

“Both sides and all parties and advocates, as also witnesses, are forbidden from disclosing the contents of any order, judgment, or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court,” the court said on the media disclosure part.

Justice Patel added that it was imperative to protect the identities of the parties from disclosure, even accidental disclosure in such proceedings, in the interests of both sides, and the endeavour would be to “anonymise the identities of the parties”.

The orders came in a hearing of a POSH case involving a major blue-chip company and its woman staffer — who was represented by advocate Abha Singh.

The other highlights were: Parties’ names shall be replaced with “A v B”, etc., the order will mention them as only ‘Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, etc.’, no reference to any ‘personally identifiable information (PII) like email, mobile or phone numbers, addresses, etc,’ and ‘no witness names and addresses’ shall be mentioned.

All orders/judgements would be delivered in private, not in open court but only in the judge’s chambers or in camera, with online or hybrid facility not allowed, in the presence of the litigants and lawyers and others including most of the court staff to leave the court.

“Orders can’t be published without court’s direction, and if any order is to be released into public domain, it will require a specific order of the court. This will be on the condition that only the fully anonymised version of the order of judgement is let into the public domain for publication,” said Justice Patel in the earlier order.

It forbade both sides, all parties and advocates and witnesses from disclosing the contents of any order, judgment, or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court, as per the guidelines.

There are strict restrictions barring anyone other than the Advocate-on-Record to inspect or copy any filings/orders, the entire record will be kept sealed and not handed over to anybody without the court’s order, witness depositions would be strictly not uploaded under any circumstances, and so on.

Crime

Seven injured in Haryana gang war outside police station

Published

on

Chandigarh, Aug 6: In a brazen daylight indiscriminate firing in front of the police station in Dadri city of Haryana on Thursday, seven people, who were riding on an SUV car, received injuries, police said.

Three assaulters fled on foot by waving revolvers.

Prima facie the police believed the crime was linked to a gang war, although the attackers, who fired at least 30 shots, are yet to be identified.

A video of the crime was surfaced, showing injured men sitting in the bullet-riddled SUV car.

The injured have been referred to the PGI in Rohtak in a critical condition.

The cause of the crime is yet to be ascertained.

The gunfire sound triggered panic in the area.

Seven people riding Scorpio car were seriously injured.

According to eyewitnesses, the firing was so sudden that there was a stampede-like condition among passersby.

As the information received, the police reached the spot and the injured were rushed to the Civil Hospital of Charkhi Dadri for treatment.

After first-aid, all the seven injured were referred to PGI Rohtak in critical conditions.

The injured have been identified as Ankit of Charkhi Dadri, Kirtiman of Hisar, Suraj, Ankit of Bhiwani, Sunny of Hisar, Krishan of Mahendragarh and Amit of Fatehgarh.

A forensic team took possession of the evidence at the spot.

Footage from CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity is also being scanned to identify the attackers, an Investigating official said.

Preliminary investigation by the police revealed that the three miscreants came on a bike.

The accused positioned the bike in front of the Scorpio car and forced him to stop it following which they opened fire.

The firing caused a stampede and chaos at the spot.

The Superintendent of Police and other senior officers reached the spot as the incident was reported.

The police have cordoned off the entire area.

With the help of the forensic team, evidence, bullet shells and other important clues found from the spot are being seized and they are being examined.

Continue Reading

Crime

Ex-Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s acquittal in rape case reversed, sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment (Lead)

Published

on

Mumbai, Aug 6: The Bombay High Court on Thursday sentenced former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment in the 2013 sexual assault case involving a junior colleague, hours after setting aside his acquittal and convicting him of rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A division bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar announced the sentence and granted Tejpal two weeks’ time to surrender before the jail authorities.

Earlier in the day, the Justice Gokhale-led Bench had allowed the appeal filed by the Goa government against the May 2021 judgment of a sessions court in Mapusa, which had acquitted Tejpal of all charges.

Pronouncing the verdict, the Bombay High Court convicted Tejpal under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) (rape), 354A (sexual harassment) and 354B (assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to disrobe) of the IPC. It had then posted the sentencing for later in the day.

During the hearing on the question of sentence, Tejpal’s counsel sought suspension of the conviction for eight weeks to enable him to approach the Supreme Court, submitting that the verdict had reversed an acquittal and highlighting that there was no other criminal case against him.

Addressing the Justice Gokhale-led Bench, Tejpal also pleaded for leniency, stating that he believed himself to be a victim and requested the High Court to take a compassionate view while deciding the sentence.

Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case required a strong message against sexual violence, contending that “when a girl says no, it means no”.

The case stems from allegations made by a junior colleague that Tejpal sexually assaulted her inside an elevator of a luxury hotel in Goa during an event in November 2013.

The Goa Police registered an FIR against Tejpal for offences including rape, following which he was arrested in November 2013 after a local court rejected his anticipatory bail plea.

He was granted regular bail by the Supreme Court in July 2014.

In May 2021, Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi acquitted Tejpal, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and citing alleged lapses in the investigation, including failure to produce certain evidence such as CCTV footage.

The Goa government challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court, contending that the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record.

During the appeal hearing, the prosecution argued that the Sessions Court had focussed on the survivor’s post-incident conduct and background instead of assessing the evidence against the accused. It also submitted that the trial court ignored material evidence, including an apology email allegedly sent by Tejpal after the complainant raised the allegations with the then Managing Editor of the publication.

Continue Reading

Crime

Atiq Ahmed son Abaan dies in UP road accident on way to meet jailed brother

Published

on

Lucknow, Aug 6: Former Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Atiq Ahmed’s youngest son Abaan Ahmed died in a fatal car accident on Thursday, said multiple reports.

The deadly mishap happened on the Jhanshi-Kanpur national highway in Uttar Pradesh while Abaan was on his way to meet his brother, imprisoned in extortion and other cases. Their vehicle apparently crashed into a highway divider, leaving the vehicle in ruins.

Preliminary findings suggest rash driving as the reason behind the deadly crash. The images and visuals that surfaced from the accident site show the scale and intensity of the crash. The car’s front portion was completely wrecked in the collision, as the car purportedly hit a road divider.

Abaan Ahmed, the youngest son of the slain gangster-turned-politician, was said to have been behind the wheel during the mishap, and he was accompanied by four other associates. Abaan and one of his aides died in the severe accident, while three others are said to be seriously injured.

The accident occurred when Abaan and his associates were going to meet his jailed brother Ali Ahmed, who is currently incarcerated in a Jhansi prison.

The car met with an accident near the Poonch area on the highway. The police and local administration swung into action after getting information about the fatal crash, and they shifted the critically injured to a nearby hospital. The doctors declared Abaan Ahmed, along with one other, dead on arrival, while three others were administered initial medical aid and subsequently referred to Maharani Laxmibai Medical College.

The police team reached the accident spot and was investigating the reasons behind the fatal accident. The two dead bodies have also been taken into custody and sent for post-mortem.

According to police, over-speeding and rash driving led to loss of control and are believed to be the key reasons behind the fatal accident.

Abaan Ahmed was the youngest son of Atiq Ahmed, while his elder brother Ali Ahmed is currently lodged in Jhansi jail over involvement in multiple cases.

Ali has been in prison in an extortion case. He is an accused in the February 2023 killing of Umesh Pal, the key witness in the BSP MLA Raju Pal murder case.

In 2023, Atiq Ahmed and his brother, Ashraf, were shot dead by three men posing as journalists, as police were taking them for a mandatory medical checkup. The entire episode was beamed live on television, leaving many shocked and appalled over the gruesome murder in full media glare.

Continue Reading

Trending