PANJIM: The Bombay High Court at Goa on Wednesday issued a notice to Tehelka magazine’s founder and ex-Editor In Chief Tarun Tejpal while accepting Goa government’s criminal appeal challenging his acquittal in the sexual assault case against his former junior colleague during an event in Goa in November 2013.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appearing for the government submitted that the judgment lacked complete sensitivity for crimes against women and on the knowledge of the sections of criminal laws. He further submitted that the judgment was replete with examples on attempts of the trial court to define the conduct of the victim, her reaction to the assault and her past sexual conduct.
The Vacation Bench of Justice SC Gupte commented that Trial Court verdict appeared to be a manual for rape victim, after Mehta reads out a series of extracts from the judgment copy.
The Justice said, “There is a prima facie case made out to grant leave to hear the appeal. Notice (to) be issued to the Respondent (Tejpal) returnable on June 24, 2021. Also the Registry to call for records and proceedings of the case before the Sessions Court.”
During the hearing, the Solicitor General once again took exception to the description of Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Rebecca John in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. He said, “Another issue I am flagging, because this is a pan-India issue is the remarks on Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Rebecca John. The remarks were made that they are feminists as if it is a bad thing calling Jaising ‘Brahmastra.” The Trial Court had noted that the survivor had saved the mobile number of Jaising, who was a friend of her mother’s, as ‘Brahmastra.’
Mehta stated that the remarks made in the order against feminists were defamatory and implied that if legal guidance was taken before filing a complaint the decision will go against the victim.
He urged the Court that these names be redacted from the Trial Court order to which Justice Gupte said that since he was the vacation judge, this request could wait.
In its amended appeal before the High Court last week, the State had contended that consulting Senior Advocates did not lessen the credibility of the survivor. The State also took strong objection to the Trial Court’s unwarranted remarks regarding her sexual history.
