HC directs gangster’s minor daughter to explain disclosure of witness names

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has ordered a minor girl to respond to a special court’s contempt notice over her “micro-journalism” concerning her father, who is facing charges under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GujCTOC). She had allegedly exposed the names of ‘secret witnesses’, jeopardising their safety and violating provisions of the special law.The case involves the daughter of infamous Jamnagar land mafia figure Jaysukh Ranparia alias Jayesh Patel, who is facing more than 45 criminal cases, including charges of organised crime under the GujCTOC Act, and is currently lodged in Bellmarsh Prison in the United Kingdom. He is facing extradition proceedings initiated by the Centre.In 2022-23, when the girl was 14 years old, she allegedly circulated pamphlets titled ‘Dhandhero’, in which she disclosed the identities of protected witnesses who were expected to depose against her father.A police officer later complained to the court, alleging that her actions jeopardised the safety of witnesses and violated Section 17 of the GujCTOC Act, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of secret witnesses. On April 15, 2023, the court issued a showcause notice to the minor, seeking her reply as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her and why the matter should not be referred to the HC.The girl challenged the notice before the HC, arguing that she was neither an accused nor a witness in the GujCTOC case and therefore could not have known the names of the secret witnesses, especially since the chargesheet had those details blacked out. She also contended that proceedings under Section 17 could only be initiated by a witness or the public prosecutor, and that a police officer lacked the authority to move such an application.Moreover, she argued that the pamphleteering amounted to “micro-journalism” aimed at creating awareness among citizens about city affairs. She further contended that, as a juvenile, she should not have been summoned by any court other than a juvenile court.The state govt opposed the teenager’s petition. After hearing the matter, Justice M K Thakker rejected the petition, observing: “…she admits that she is doing the activity of journalism and distributing pamphlets by the name of Dhandhero. The applicant is trying to take advantage of her age however, from the activities which are narrated in the memo of the application, it would be difficult to consider that the applicant is unaware about the consequences of the distribution of pamphlets and disclosing the names of secret witnesses.”The HC has directed the teenage girl to appear before the special court and provide an explanation justifying her actions.