Hathras case media clippings shown at Allahabad high court

LUCKNOW: The audio and video clippings of the cremation of the alleged victim of gang rape in Hathras was watched by both the parties and their counsel at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Saturday.
The electronic and print media had reported the issue on the basis of which the court had taken suo motu cognizance of case, expressing that the conduct of the Hathras police and administration amounted to depriving the victim’s family of its human and fundamental rights of dignified cremation.
The victim died at a Delhi hospital on September 29, 15 days after she was allegedly gang-raped and strangulated by four youths of her own village in Hathras. The local administration allegedly hurriedly performed her last rites before dawn without the consent of the family.
Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh were present at the screening along with amicus curiae and senior lawyer JN Mathur, additional advocate general VK Sahi , home secretary Tarun Gauba, the then Hathras DM Pravin Kumar and SP Vikrant Veer as well as the brother and sister-in-law of the victim, and their lawyer Seema Kushwaha.
The proceedings were conducted in the video-conferencing hall of the high court. In the course of proceedings, the judges asked the parties not to express any opinion on the clippings and if they wanted to say something on them, they could file their response in the court by January 27, which is already fixed for next hearing.
The court had taken suo motu cognizance of the issue particularly of alleged objectionable manner of cremation and passed several orders on previous hearings. In the first hearing , the court had directed different media channels and newspapers to provide their material on the basis of which they telecast news or published the news items in Hathras case. In response thereto, the clippings of video and audio visuals were submitted in the court.
After watching them , the court was of the view that all parties should also view them and present their response before it passed some order in the case , in which it could make mentions of the clippings as well.
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme Court directives on cases related to sexual assault)