On 19th January 2021, The High Court of Judicature of Bombay in the case of Sangita v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Comprising of Justice T.V. Nalawade and Justice M.G. Sewlikar held that the Name or Identity of the Rape Victim should not be disclosed directly or Indirectly

This Public Interest Litigation is fled by the petitioner seeking direction to the Print and Electronic Media that the name or identity of the rape victim should not be disclosed.

Factual Background of the case

The petitioner is the real mother of the victim. First Information Report No. was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and after arrest of the accused, Section 376 was added.

It is however, alleged that despite having made the provisions under Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and despite having the directions been issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703, the Print and Electronic Media are publishing the details of the crime in such a manner that the identity of the victim is invariably disclosed.

The petitioner has alleged that because of the offence of rape, the victim suffers physical and mental trauma and publication of the news thereby disclosing the identity of the victim, causes severe mental agony to the victim. The petitioner had made several representations to fnd out whether there are any guidelines and whether any training is imparted to the media in this regard. She has further sought directions to the media not to disclose the details revealing the identity of the victim in the case of rape.

Impartial Advisor to Court (Amicus Curiae)

Learned counsel Shri A.D. Ostwal was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

 He argued that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena (supra) has issued various guidelines. Guidelines in this regard are also issued by the Delhi High Court. Kolkata High Court has also issued directions in the case of Bijoy @ Guddu Das Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2017) 2 Cal LJ 224. These guidelines indicate that in no case name of the victim should either be disclosed nor the details revealing her identity shall be published.

He argued that despite these directions, the Print Media and the Electronic Media give the details of the crime, relation of accused with the victim, details as regards the parents of the victim thereby revealing the identity of the victim. He has furnished proposed guidelines for the consideration of this Court.

He further submitted before the Court that,

“It is true that the victim of sex offence undergoes not only physical trauma but also mental trauma. She has to undergo these agonies for no fault of hers. Keeping this object in view, Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted which mandates that the identity of the victim in offences under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D or 376-E should not be disclosed.”

Despite issuance of these guidelines, the Print Media and Electronic Media are reporting these offences in such a manner that the identity of the victim is established directly or indirectly.

Further he argued that the electronic media holds interviews of the victim/relatives of the victim which lead to revealing the identity of the victim. He argued that the victim or the relatives of the victim are least aware that by giving such interviews they are exposing themselves to the revelation of the identity of the victim.

Guidelines by the Court

The print media, the electronic media, the people using social media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Internet, Twitter etc. while giving information / circulating information relating to offences under section 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D or 376-E of the Indian Penal Code and the offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, shall not publish/disclose following information in such a manner that the victim will be identifed directly or indirectly :-

  1. The names of the parents or relatives of the victim.
  2. Relation of the accused with the victim.
  3. Residential/occupational/work address of the accused and the victim and the village at which the victim and/ or accused live.
  4. Occupation of the parents or other relations of the victim and place of work of the victim and accused /their parents or any other relative in such a manner that the victim will be identifed.
  5. If the victim is a student, name of the school or college or any other educational institution or private coaching class or classes which the victim has joined for pursuing her hobbies such as music, drawing, dance, stitching, cooking etc. vi) Details of family background of the victim.

Judgment

The Court in its judgment stated that the:-

The Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation

The Court further stated that the, “We record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri Ostwal, learned Amicus Curiae and learned APP Shri Salgare. Fees of the appointed counsel is quantifed at Rs.15,000/- and it should be paid through the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee at Aurangabad.”

The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to bring these directions to the notice of :

  1. The Registrar General of this Court for circulating to all the subordinate Courts
  2. the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra
  3. the Principal Secretary & R.L.A., Law and Judiciary Department
  4. the Secretary, Indian Broadcasting Foundation, New Delhi
  5. the Secretary, Press Council of India, New Delhi.

Shri Ostwal stated that before the Court his fees shall be credited to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (for Covid-19).

Case Title: Sangita v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Criminal PIL No: 1 of 2016

Court: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Coram: Justice T.V. Nalawade & Justice M.G. Sewlikar

Reserve on: 7 December, 2020

Pronounced on: 19 January, 2021

 

Picture Source :

 
Rishab Bhandari