The Bombay High Court has reinforced the state’s non-negotiable duty to provide technological infrastructure for video recording of trials under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This order clarifies that statutory mandates cannot remain theoretical without institutional implementation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Nagaraj Rama Kale, sought compliance with a prior order of this Court dated 23.06.2025, which directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, to ensure that designated Sessions Courts and Appellate Courts are equipped with video recording facilities for proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The directive arose from the Court’s recognition that Section 15-A(10) of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on the state to guarantee transparent, accessible, and technologically enabled justice delivery in atrocities cases.
Procedural History
- 13.03.2024: Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.911/2019 emphasized the necessity of video recording for safeguarding rights of victims and ensuring fair trial.
- 23.06.2025: This Court issued a directive to the Chief Secretary to implement infrastructure for video recording in all designated courts under the Atrocities Act.
- 29.01.2026: Appellant raised concern that no compliance report had been filed by the Registry, indicating possible inaction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought confirmation that the Court’s order dated 23.06.2025 had been communicated and acted upon, and requested the Registry to file a compliance report detailing steps taken to install video recording systems in designated courts.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 15-A(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes a binding obligation on the state to provide technological infrastructure for video recording of trials, and whether judicial directives to implement such infrastructure are enforceable absent formal compliance reports.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant, appearing in person, contended that the Court’s prior order was not merely advisory but a mandatory directive under Section 15-A(10), which mandates the state to ensure that trials are conducted with dignity and transparency. He argued that failure to implement video recording undermines the Act’s purpose of deterring atrocities and protecting vulnerable communities. He cited the Court’s own judgment in Criminal Appeal No.911/2019 to underscore the urgency of compliance.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor acknowledged receipt of the Court’s order but did not dispute its enforceability. No substantive counter-argument was advanced regarding the state’s obligation under the statute. The absence of a formal response implied tacit acceptance of the legal duty.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language and intent of Section 15-A(10), which states that the state government shall ensure that designated courts have the necessary infrastructure, including video recording facilities, to conduct proceedings effectively. The provision is not directory but mandatory, as it forms part of a comprehensive framework to ensure accountability and deterrence in atrocities cases.
"The statutory mandate under Section 15-A(10) is not a suggestion but a constitutional obligation to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities."
The Court noted that the Registry’s failure to file any compliance report constituted a procedural lapse that undermined judicial authority. The absence of documentation does not equate to compliance. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance is non-negotiable when statutory rights are at stake, especially in cases where victims face systemic barriers to justice.
The Court further held that judicial orders directing infrastructure development under special statutes like the Atrocities Act are enforceable through contempt proceedings if ignored. The state cannot defer implementation on grounds of budgetary constraints or administrative delay.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court held that Section 15-A(10) imposes a binding obligation on the state to provide video recording infrastructure for trials under the Atrocities Act. The Registry was directed to file a compliance report by 11.02.2026, and the matter was listed for further hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Infrastructure Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must now treat non-compliance with infrastructure mandates under special statutes as a ground for contempt or writ relief.
- Applications for monitoring compliance can be filed proactively in pending atrocities cases.
- Courts may issue specific directions to state departments, not just to courts.
Documentary Compliance Is Mandatory
- Oral assurances from state officials are insufficient; written reports from registries or administrative authorities are required.
- Failure to file compliance reports may result in adverse inference against the state in future hearings.
- Legal teams should routinely request compliance status in cases involving statutory infrastructure obligations.
Judicial Oversight Extends to Administrative Action
- Courts are empowered to supervise implementation of statutory mandates even after judgment, through follow-up listings.
- This creates a new precedent for enforcing administrative duties in criminal justice reform.
- Similar obligations under other special laws (e.g., POCSO, Domestic Violence Act) may now be enforced with equal rigor.
