Supreme Court Directs Action Against YouTube Channels For Publishing Identities Of Women Who Alleged Sexual Offences

The Supreme Court recently asked the State of Rajasthan to take appropriate steps under Section 72(Disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences, etc) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS), after it was informed that the identities of the victims, their names, along with the court's proceedings, have been published on YouTube channels by the petitioner, who is accused under Section 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc) BNS.

As per Section 69 BNS, if a person, by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without the intention to fulfil it, has sexual intercourse with her, the offence does not amount to rape but is punishable with a term that may exceed 10 years imprisonment. Section 72 says revealing the identity of the victim in sexual offences is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of 2 years and a fine.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order in this regard.

"The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – State has submitted before the court that the proceedings of this Court including the pictures of the so called victims and their names are being published in the youtube channels. In fact, Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023 (old Indian Penal Code, 1860) is a complete answer to the same. In this background, it would be open for the State or the victim to take appropriate steps in this regard."

The matter pertains to the allegation of a false promise to marry by three different complainants against the petitioner, Arpit Narainwal, who approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash it. By a common order dated June 3, the three petitions were dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the allegations in the FIRs are clearly suggestive of the fact that the alleged victims have attempted to honey-trap the petitioner and voluntary relationships in the nature of live-in have been given the colour of an allegation of sexual exploitation under the promise of marriage.

She had also stated that in the two FIRs, the police, after investigation, submitted negative reports under Section 173(2) CrPC, assigning strong reasons and pointing out the patent falsity in the prosecution initiated by the respective victims.

On June 26, a bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice PB Varale issued notice and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in the three FIRs.

When the matter was taken up on October 31, Respondent no.2(one of the complainants) appeared in person and submitted that the petitioner had threatened her. She stated that she has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, and it is also reported that the Station House Officer, Surjeet Tholiya, of Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, has also been threatening her. 

The Counsel for the State of Rajasthan had responded, stating that immediate instructions would be given to the extent necessary for protection, if required.