New Delhi: The Supreme Court resolved a long-standing legal question when it adjudicated in the Kerala actress assault case, ruling on whether the memory card containing the assault footage should be treated as a material object or a document, a debate that moved from the trial court to the High Court and ultimately to the apex court.

If classified as a material object, the content would not need to be provided to the accused, whereas if considered a document, the accused must receive a copy. With the Supreme Court delivering a clear legal interpretation in this rare situation, the judgment is now viewed as a crucial guideline for all cases involving sexual assault being videographed.

The trial court had earlier dismissed the eighth accused, Dileep’s, application seeking a copy of the memory card, citing that the complainant’s privacy, dignity and safety would be compromised. After the High Court upheld this view, Dileep appealed to the Supreme Court in late 2018, and the verdict was delivered in November 2019 after nearly a year of legal scrutiny.

The core question the Supreme Court faced was not whether Dileep should receive a copy of visuals of the actress assault, but providing clarity on legality in an unparalleled case. The memory card possessed characteristics of both a material object and a document (digital/electronic). It is natural that the century-old Law of Evidence does not mention something like a memory card. Due to that, the Supreme Court considered the Information Technology Act.

Dileep argued that the visuals were a document and that he therefore had the legal right to obtain a copy. However, the state government and the survivor strongly opposed the request, asserting that granting access could enable misuse of the visuals, as the alleged instigation of the crime itself was done by Dileep. The government later adopted a diluted position: even if the footage was viewed as a document, a copy should not be provided without security safeguards.

Supreme Court findings

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the footage on the memory card qualified as a digital document, giving the accused the right to examine it. However, in view of the survivor’s safety, privacy and dignity, the court ruled that Dileep could not receive a copy of the footage. The material may only be inspected in court in the presence of lawyers, IT experts or an independent agency, and no report related to the review may be released until after the completion of the trial.

The Supreme Court’s historic verdict held that the survivor’s privacy and dignity are of greater importance, even while granting the accused the right to examine the card.