Sexual Offence Victim's Identity Can't Be Disclosed Merely Because Accused Was Not Summoned For Rape: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the protection under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code against disclosure of the identity of a sexual offence victim attaches to the allegation itself, and is not dependent on whether the accused was summoned for the offence.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a victim of an alleged sexual offence cannot be denied the protection merely because the accused persons were not summoned for the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC.

The Court made the observation while allowing a plea filed by a woman seeking masking of her name and other identifying particulars from court judgments and orders relating to her complaint alleging sexual offences.

“It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is not an accused seeking to be forgotten. The petitioner is the victim/complainant of an alleged sexual offence. Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the BNS, bars disclosure of the identity of any person against whom such an offence is 'alleged or found to have been committed'. The protection attaches to the allegation itself. It is, therefore, immaterial that the accused persons were not summoned for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC,” the Court observed.

The woman had instituted a complaint in 2007 alleging offences under Sections 324, 325, 376, 506(2) and 511 of the IPC. However, the Metropolitan Magistrate, in 2011, declined to summon the accused persons for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and summoned them only for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.

Her subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court in 2013. The High Court also dismissed her petition under Section 482 of CrPC in 2016.

The woman approached the Court seeking masking of her name, parentage and address from the aforesaid judicial orders, which were available on the websites of the High Court, District Courts and third-party portals.

She submitted that an internet search of her name led to the judgments and that the accused persons had circulated copies of the orders among her neighbours, resulting in daily taunts, physical violence and social ostracism.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, which emphasised that the identity of victims of sexual offences must not be disclosed, including through particulars that could indirectly reveal their identity.

The Court noted that the orders in the present case disclosed the woman's name, parentage and address and were accessible through searches of her name.

It further observed that no public interest was served by such disclosure, which only resulted in the very victimisation that Section 228A of IPC seeks to prevent.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to mask or remove the woman's name and identity markers from the relevant orders, including the 2016 judgment.

It also directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, to similarly mask her identifying particulars from the 2011 summoning order and the 2013 Sessions Court judgment.

The woman was additionally permitted to approach concerned portals, including third-party websites, public search engines and intermediaries, seeking to host masked versions of the relevant judicial orders or other material pertaining to the proceedings.

“Whenever the petitioner would apply or approach any of the search engines, third-party portals or intermediaries, it is expected that they would follow the mandate of Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the BNS, and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena (supra), as noted hereinabove, and mask any other material which may be on the record about the aforementioned cases wherein the name and identity markers of the petitioner are reflected,” the Court said.