The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted relief to advocate Renjith B Marar from his role as amicus curiae in a matter pertaining to the well-known 2017 actress assault case.
A single bench of Justice K Babu, who had previously designated Marar as amicus curiae on August 21, tasked with aiding the Court in devising protocols to safeguard electronic documents held in judicial custody, responded to Marar’s request by releasing him from this responsibility.
The bench noted that Marar had informed about his inability to fulfill the role of amicus curiae on Monday. Marar’s appointment had coincided with the Court’s consideration of a plea filed by the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case. The plea, presented through advocate TB Mini, alleged irregularities in the investigation of the case, in which cine actor Dileep is a principal accused. The survivor contended that her fundamental right to a fair trial and her right to privacy, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, had been violated.
The plea highlighted that visual evidence of the assault endured by the petitioner had been leaked, despite being stored on a memory card held in the custody of the trial-conducting court. The survivor further claimed that although the Forensic Science Lab had submitted a report confirming the illicit leak, the presiding officer of the trial court had taken no action and had not authorized interviews of the court staff by the investigating officer.
“The unauthorized access, tampering, and transmission of the memory card’s contents while it remains in the custodial care of the court also invokes offenses punishable under Sections 201, 204 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, all of which are cognizable offenses subject to police investigation,” the plea asserted.
Consequently, the survivor appealed to the High Court for intervention, aiming to ensure an impartial and equitable investigation and trial. The Court, following the conclusion of all parties’ submissions on Monday, reserved its judgment in the case.
The Court, deeply concerned about allegations of electronic evidence leakage during its judicial custody, found it appropriate to designate an amicus curiae to address this specific issue.
