BREAKING: SC again violates privacy of a rape victim; mentions her name and age – ironically, voices concern over violence against women! [Read the Judgment]

Violating the mandate against identity disclosure of a victim of rape, a 2 judge bench of Supreme Court has published not only the name of the petitioner but also her age and area to which she belongs. In a clear breach of the spirit of Sec. 228A of IPC, the judgment title mentions the full name and the very first line mentions her age and resident state. (which could have been easily avoided). Further Para 2 mentions her home district and all the places she has been are in detail in further paragraphs. The judgment also unfortunately mentions the names of 2 women who had been cautiously awarded her custody by lower courts.What the statute book says!Sec 228A was added to the statute book in the year 1983. Sec 228A(1) prescribes a punishment upto 2 years + fine to whoever prints or publishes the name of a rape victim. Clause 2 gives 3 exceptions and the explanation to the provision carves a safeguard to judgments of HC and SC. The legislative intent behind incorporating this section in our penal regime was the rehabilitation of the victim. An act of rape to a woman violates her dignity to a very harsh and brutal extent. The mental state of such a victim cannot be defined by words or expressions. It is the duty of the state to make sure that the guilty is punished according to the law and the victim is restituted to the nearest possible state as she was earlier in. The mental agony and sufferings though are tough to reduce but can be sorted out to a large extent if her identity is protected by all means possible. In a richly woven tapestry of Indian social fabric, with so many taboos based on caste, religion and creed, if the identity of a victim is not protected by the state, it leads to further victimization by the state itself.The Judgment.In a classic and unfortunate case of women trafficking, rape, sexual exploitation, kidnapping and abduction, custodial rights, rampant flesh trade, cruelty, breakdown of criminal machinery and above all 'anti-cooperation' from the investigating agency, the 2 judge bench comprising of Justices M.Y.Eqbal and Shiva Kirti Singh transferred the investigation to CBI noting the seriousness of the allegations made.The judgment ironically has drafted notes about present condition of women especially in an era of spree of sexual violences against women. What can't be overseen is that the trumpet of women empowerment is blowing nationwide, legislations have been put into parlance and social activists and media is more active than ever to grab news of sexual violence against women. But still, the situation is no better than yesterday, seems no better for tomorrow either. Such disclosure by the apex court adds to the apathy.The writ petition was filed u/a 32 requesting the court to protect her fundamental rights u/a 14 & 21 in for as much that even after registering of FIR no statements have been recorded. The factual matrix in a nutshell is that the petitioner alleged that her father wanted to force her into prostitution. She managed to escape but was brought back and handed over in custody of her teacher. She was later abducted by the help of police by her father and allies. After much ado in courts, her father after the final hearing dragged her from out of the court. She was then raped and assaulted. Even after a lot of litigation at various courts and stages, the accused are still at large and due to laxity shown by UP Police she feels unsafe in approaching the Allahabad High Court u/a 226.First instance? Eh!This is not the first instance where an omission has been done by constitutional courts of the country. In various cases the Supreme Court has published names of the victims. Noting this culture of publishing names of victims, it was laid down by Justice Arijit Pasayat with Justice Doraiswamy Raju in Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, that-"2. We do not propose to mention name of the victim, section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publishing of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated we have chosen to describe her as 'victim' in the judgment".However, there are numerous instances where the court carefully declined to mention the name of the victim to protect her civil liberties. Recently, the Supreme Court while deciding a petition against a sitting High Court judge, neither did mention the name ...

BREAKING: SC again violates privacy of a rape victim; mentions her name and age – ironically, voices concern over violence against women! [Read the Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags