Summary
The Supreme Court issued directions protecting the identity of rape survivors and children subjected to sexual offences. Protection extended to information permitting indirect identification, public access to FIRs and records, and pseudonymous appeals. It prescribed judicial safeguards for exceptional disclosure, distinguished adult written consent from child protection, and requested district one-stop centres. The petitions were disposed of only as to the issues addressed.
Issues
- How identity protection for adult rape victims and child victims should operate across media, investigation and court records.
- Who could authorise exceptional disclosure and what support arrangements were required.
Provisions considered
- Section 228A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Identity included indirectly identifying information; statutory exceptions were distinguished, with interim judicial safeguards for disclosure concerning deceased victims or victims of unsound mind. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 43)
- Section 327(2) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973In-camera proceedings and restrictions on publication protected victims while permitting reporting consistent with the statutory safeguards. (¶¶ 7, 22, 23)
- Sections 23, 24(5) and 33(7), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Child identity protection covered family, school, neighbourhood and other identifying particulars; exceptional disclosure required the Special Court’s recorded assessment of the child’s interest. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 43)
Held
- The prohibition covered all forms of media and facts enabling identification, not merely publication of a victim’s name. An adult’s voluntary, conscious written authorisation remained a statutory exception. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12, 14, 43)
- Next-of-kin authorisation alone did not justify identifying a deceased victim or victim of unsound mind. Pending governmental criteria and recognition of welfare institutions, applications under section 228A(2)(c) were to be made to the concerned Sessions Judge; justified disclosure required the competent authority’s assessment. (¶¶ 17, 18, 21, 43)
- FIRs for the specified sexual offences and POCSO offences were not to enter the public domain. Identifying documents were, as far as possible, to be sealed and replaced in publicly scrutinised records with anonymised copies; recipient authorities also had confidentiality duties. (¶¶ 13, 43)
- Victims could seek to appeal under a coded identity, with identifying documents sealed and the non-disclosure application considered in chambers without publicly identifying the victim. (¶¶ 27, 43)
- POCSO protected children of all genders, including deceased child victims. Direct or indirect identification could be permitted only by the Special Court in the child’s interest, with reasons recorded; turning the child into a protest symbol ordinarily did not satisfy that test. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 43)
- Child-friendly courts and integrated support were emphasised. States and Union Territories were requested to establish at least one one-stop centre per district within one year; High Court Juvenile Justice Committees were to receive the judgment for appropriate directions. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
- The annexed Calcutta High Court directions on child-victim safeguards were endorsed, and High Court Juvenile Justice Committees were requested to consider similar directions adapted to local needs. (¶¶ 38, 44)
Result
Petitions disposed of as to the issues addressed, with identity-protection directions and a request for district one-stop centres within one year. Judgment to be circulated to High Court Registrars General for the indicated action.