Delhi High Court Slams Media for Revealing Kathua Victim’s Name

Disclosing name & photograph of victim violates POCSO & IPC.

On Friday, the Delhi High Court issued a stern order criticising the media for disclosing the details of the Kathua rape and murder victim, and issued notice to 12 media houses for reports naming her. These include The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Republic TV, and Firstpost.

“Unfortunately the nature and manner of reporting of the alleged offence is being effected in absolute violation of specific prohibition of law disrespecting the privacy of victim which is required to be maintained in respect of the identify of a victim” [sic], writes Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal, who authored the order.

The order criticises the media reports for carrying the name and photographs of the minor girl victim, and also laments the fact that none of the official authorities such as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the National Commission for Women (NCW) or the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) took exception to this development.

These official authorities as well as the Central Government have been impleaded as parties to the case, and have been tasked with taking steps to prohibit the disclosure of any details about the identity of the victim.

Why is Disclosing the Identity of the Victim Illegal?

The High Court refers to two provisions of law which prohibit disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual crimes.

1. Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO) prohibits the media specifically from disclosing the name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of a victim of sexual offences against a child. Committing this offence is punishable with imprisonment for 6 months to 1 year, and publishers/owners of media houses will be responsible along with whoever wrote the story.
2. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) prohibits the printing or publishing of the name or any other detail which discloses the identity of a victim of rape (section 376, 376 A-E of the IPC). This can be waived by the victim, or, where the victim is dead, by the family of the victim, to the specific authorities. Committing this offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Chief Justice Mittal has taken a strong view on these provisions, noting that

There cane be no manner of doubt that the objects, spirit and intendment of the above provisions have been placed at the highest pedestal by the Legislature. Disrespect and violation of privacy of a victim of an offence under Sections 376 and 376A to E, which are concerned with sexual offences including rape, cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

Notices to the Media Houses

The Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the matter, ie, the court has taken the matter up without someone filing a case before it. Notices have been issued to the 12 media houses listed in paragraph 7 of the order, which will need to show cause to court why action shouldn’t be taken against them for violating the legal provisions mentioned above.

The order includes an express prohibition of publication of any content which “may have an effect of leading the disclosure of the identity of the child victim” – though it should be noted that the prohibition already exists under the law, the order merely reiterates this.

The judges note that there may be other media houses which have also violated the law, and will take action against them as well upon further enquiry. This means that the court will not just be looking at future violations of the law, but also any prior violations that have not yet been identified.

The order also addresses any objections/defences which might be raised based on the need to report news freely, noting:

The media has to be circumspect in reporting to the extent it is in contravention of the law. Freedom of the press has to be balanced with the integrity of the judicial process, and must comport with the requirements of the law. No violation is permissible.

Senior advocate Arvind Nigam and advocate Rajshekhar Rao have been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter, which will be taken up by the court again on 18 April.