Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the legality of a Special Court’s directive to a lawyer to file an affidavit ensuring the non-misuse of a witness statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The case, titled Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala, involved allegations under the POCSO Act and other statutes. Advocates Renjith B. Marar and Lakshmi N. Kaimal represented the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor M. K. Pushpalatha represented the respondents.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Advocates Renjith B. Marar and Lakshmi N. Kaimal argued that the petitioner had a statutory right to obtain the victim’s statement under Section 207 of CrPC. They contended that sufficient legal safeguards, including provisions in the POCSO Act and other statutes, were in place to protect the victim’s identity and prevent misuse of the statement. They cited precedents and legal provisions to emphasize the protection afforded to victims of sexual offences.

Public Prosecutor M. K. Pushpalatha defended the Special Court’s order, asserting that it was necessary to prevent the misuse of the victim’s statement. However, the court noted that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence or legal basis for such apprehensions.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice K. Babu, presiding over the case, quashed the Special Court’s order, emphasizing that lawyers are officers of the court expected to discharge their duties legally. The High Court observed that the Special Court’s directive without any foundation on the apprehension of illegal acts by the lawyer amounted to interference in the right to practice law. The Court further directed the Special Court to issue certified copies of the victim’s statements to the petitioner, upholding the petitioner’s statutory right and recognizing the existing legal safeguards.