The Supreme Court of India, on 20th January 2021(Wednesday), comprising of a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Subhash Reddy, and MR Shah ruled that it is mandatory for both print and electronic media to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Section 228A of IPC talks about the Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences and punishment attached to violating the same.( Ms. X vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.)
Facts of the Case
The Writ Petition was filed by a Scheduled Tribe rape victim under Article 32 of the Constitution, who was abducted and married off at a young age. The further ended the marriage by divorcing the man. Thereafter she was raped and her assailant was prosecuted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Through her Petition, she conveyed to the Supreme Court that the Police officers had revealed her identity as a rape victim to the press, and she was filing this Petition against the media channels for making her identity public due to which she was denied accommodation at a rental that she had approached. She thus sought directions and relief measures so that she was able to take care of her children wholly dependent on her.
The contention of the Parties
The petitioner submitted that due to the petitioner being a rape victim she is not getting any help from family friends or society. She, with three children, has no means of survival and she is not able to give education to her children. The administration, media and society has compelled the petitioner to lead a life with no security, no job and no shelter in future.
the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner has lodged various FIRs alleging rape against several persons. It was submitted that against the petitioner also an FIR was lodged for the commission of the offences under Section 25(1-b)a of Arms Act, on the basis of a written report submitted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in which charge-sheet has also been filed. It was submitted that since 02.10.2019 an armed Lady Constable, namely, Suman Surin has been deputed with the writ petitioner for her security.
It was further submitted that the State has taken care of making security arrangement of the petitioner and in pursuance of the order dated 06.01.2020 another security personnel has been deputed with the writ petitioner. Learned counsel, however, submits that the Police authority may be permitted to review the security from time to time to take appropriate measures in that regard. Shri Singh further submitted that the petitioner is in a habit of making false allegations against several persons and officers. A complaint has recently been submitted making allegations of offences under Section 376 IPC. It was submitted that the petitioner has vacated the earlier accommodation of Subodh Thakur.
Courts Observation & Judgment
There can be no denial that the petitioner is a rape victim. Even if we do not take into consideration other criminal cases filed by the petitioner under Section 376 IPC, in Case No.162/2002 where an allegation of rape was made on 08.06.2002 the accused, Mohd. Ali has been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for 10 years RI. The petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all the authorities.
The Court said notwithstanding the State's submission that the petitioner had earlier levelled false allegations of rape against individuals, the fact that one of the accused was convicted by a lower court is enough to treat the woman as a rape victim.
While pronouncing its verdict, the Court remarked that, “A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society.” With this statement it mandated all including the media to comply with section 228A of the IPC. The Court also referred to the judgement passed in the matter of Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India, observing that, “A victim of rape will face hostile discrimination and social ostracisation in Society. Such victim will find it difficult to get a job, will find it difficult to get married and will also find it difficult to get integrated in society like a normal human being. The law with regard to Section 228A is well established, all including the media, both print and electronic have to follow the law.”
The Court thus directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to take measures to ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any of the government institutions in Ranchi, where the petitioner is residing, till they attain the age of 14 years.
Further, the authorities have been asked to consider the case of the petitioner for providing housing under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, and other competent authorities have been directed to review the police security provided to the petitioner from time to time.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
