BREAKING| No General Application For Directions Barring Media Reporting Of POSH Cases : Bombay High Court Clarifies

Over five months after the Bombay High Court issued certain guidelines barring media reporting and uploading of judgements to maintain anonymity of parties, the bench clarified that its directions were 'case specific' not applicable to all matters under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act 2013 and Rules. Justice Gautam Patel acknowledged that it was not specifically noted in his 24th September 2021 order that the guidelines were specific to the suit at hand, and that the order was passed with the consent of both parties. Moreover, only the Chief Justice or a full court could issue such rules, which might also need to be notified in the official gazette, the court said. Justice Patel clarified his directions while disposing of an intervention application filed by "Forum Against Oppression of Women," under the impression that the guidelines were general in nature. The organisation contended that the guidelines are not only against the letter and spirit of the POSH Act but are also against the very concept of open courts. Open Courts is an essential aspect of judicial determinations the world over. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for the intervenors submitted that the order was being cited by men in other cases. As per the September 24 directions, disclosing identity of the victim, accused or witness in a POSH case is prohibited, all such court hearing must be in-camera in the judge's chamber. Moreover, none of the parties were permitted to disclose anything about the case, including its final outcome; judgements not to be uploaded on the website and no media reporting without prior permission of the court. "The directions had to be confined to this particular case," Justice Patel said in the latest order. He asserted that a single judge like him, sitting singly, did not have the "authority or jurisdiction" to issue rules binding the entire court. "Such Rules of general applicability would have to be approved by the Full Court. A delegation of the authority of the Full Court would have to be in a manner known to law. 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 Hon'ble 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 24th September 2021," the order read. The plaintiff represented by Advocate Abha Singh approached the Supreme Court against the guidelines stating that Justice Patel's order will help powerful men supress women's voices. "I have taken the liberty of orally pointing out the submissions made by Ms Abha Singh under her signature including the submissions for masking names, in camera hearings and protecting privacy," Justice Patel said in the present order to assert that the September 24 order was passed by consent. He added that on October 11, 2021 he has clarified that the September 24 order governs proceedings between the parties before him alone. Accordingly, Jaising along with Advocates Vijay Hiremath and Swaraj Jadhav submitted that her clients' concerns were addressed and therefore she didn't insist on her client's impleadment. The application was accordingly disposed of. Since the entire suit file for the present matter was under seal, Justice Patel directed that the present clarification be uploaded. Click Here To Read/Download Order

BREAKING| No General Application For Directions Barring Media Reporting Of POSH Cases : Bombay High Court Clarifies

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags