Orissa High Court Issues Standing Order To Protect Identity Of Sexual Offence Victims In Court Records

The Court comprehensively articulated the roles of different stake-holders in ensuring the legal mandate of privacy of such victims. It asked the Advocates to clearly mention the nature of case at the top of the petition so as to categorize the case accordingly. Now, a counsel is required to indicate cases involving offences under the POCSO Act and sexual offences under the IPC, BNS or any other law on the first page of the petition itself.

The Court directed the Stamp Reporters to treat disclosure of identity of prosecutrix in petitions, pleadings, affidavits or annexure, by any manner, i.e. her name, address or other intimate details, as a 'defect'.

Special effort was made not only to avoid disclosure of such identity in future cases but also to erase the same in the existing/pending cases. The Court mandated counsel to ensure redaction of sensitive information from the relevant documents by filing a substituted redacted version before the Additional Deputy Registrar. However, the original unredacted version shall remain with the Court's confidential record in a sealed cover.

It also ordered that in all cases, which are pending before the judgment in Nipun Saxena (supra), where identity of victim is disclosed in any judgment, order, or any other document, the original shall be kept in a sealed cover and the Registry shall prepare a masked/redacted and anonymized version of the same.

Since the Court has been a front-runner in adaptation of paperless system, it was directed that only redacted copies of records shall be made accessible to the Bench and parties including the Government Advocates, unless otherwise is specifically directed by the Court.

Pertinently, in Hukum Chand (supra) the Apex Court, while lamenting repeated violation of the statutory mandate under Section 228-A IPC (Section 72, BNS), had held as follows –

“In the end, we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that in all matters dated prior to the passing of this Court's judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim's identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly. This has been the long-standing position in law but, it has not been followed. The primary reason there amongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the Courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences.”

Notably, a Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo (as the Judge then was) in Dabu @ Santosh Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 22 had added a distinct and innovative procedure to the existing statutory framework to ensure privacy of sexual offence victims. It had expressed anguish over disclosure of names of victims of sexual offences in case records/deposition sheets despite clear statutory mandate against mentioning the same, which has been endorsed and reiterated by the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court time and again.

The Court had ordered that the name of prosecutrix should not be recorded in the deposition sheet or anywhere in the record or judgment. Rather, he/she should be indicated as 'victim'. Justice Sahoo had also clarified that the signature of the victim in his/her deposition should not be taken on the deposition sheet but should be taken in a 'separate sheet' by the trial Judge and the said sheet of paper with the signature and certificate of the Judge with date shall be kept in 'sealed cover'.

“A noting should be given in the deposition sheet so also in the order sheet of that day regarding taking of signature of the victim in a separate sheet and keeping the same in sealed cover. The said procedure should also be followed while recording statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. In the judgment, the name of the victim should never be mentioned by the Judge,” the Court had ruled.