NIPUN SAXENA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 11-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
NIPUN SAXENA & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2012)
DECEMBER 11, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.228A – Victims of sexual offences –
Protection of their identity – Directions issued – Held: No person
can print or publish the name of the victim or disclose any facts
which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make
her identity known to the public at large – Copy of  FIR relating to
the offence of rape against women shall not be put in the public
domain – Sessions Judge/Magistrate/Special Court can for reasons
to be recorded in writing and keeping in view the interest of the
victim permit the copy of the FIR to be given to some person(s) –
Authorities to which the name is disclosed are also duty bound to
keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in
any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a
sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court – Where a
victim files an appeal, it can be filed by showing her name as ‘X’ or
‘Y’ along with application for non-disclosure of the name of the
victim – Court can verify the details but in the material which is
placed in the public domain the name of the victim shall not be
disclosed – In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind
the name of the victim or her identity should not be disclosed even
under the authorization of the next of the kin, unless circumstances
justifying the disclosure of her identity exist, which shall be decided
by the competent authority – There may be situations where the next
of kin may be justified in disclosing the identity of the victim – If
any such need should arise, an application to authorise disclosure
of identity should be made only to the Sessions Judge/Magistrate
concerned who shall decide the application on the basis of the law
– However, till date the Government has not identified any social or
welfare institutions to whom the next of kin should give the
authorization – If the Government wants to actually act
u/s.228A(2)(c), it must before identifying such social welfare
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 755
755
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
institution or organisation clearly lay down some rules or clear cut
criteria in this regard – Till that is done, the directions issued shall
prevail – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.327(2).
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.23,
24, 25, 33 and 37 – Children subjected to offences under the POCSO
Act – Rights of – Held: No report in any media shall disclose identity
of the child including name, address, photograph, family details,
school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to
the disclosure of the identity of the child – FIR relating to offences
under POCSO Act not to be put in the public domain – Purpose of
the POCSO Act is to ensure that the identity of the child is not
disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in
writing permits such disclosure – This  disclosure can only be made
if it is in the interest of the child and not otherwise – Directions
issued by the Calcutta High Court in Bijoy v. State of West Bengal
are agreed with – Chairpersons and Members of all the Juvenile
Justice Committee of all the High Courts in the country to go through
the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and the directions issued
therein and issue similar directions, keeping in view the particular
needs of each High Court/State – Directions issued – Judgment be
sent to the Registrar General of all the High Courts to be placed
before the Chairpersons of the Juvenile Justice Committee of all
the High Courts for issuance of appropriate orders and directions.
Words & Phrases – “matter which may make known the
identity of the person” – Meaning of – Held: Phrase “matter which
may make known the identity of the person” in s.228A, IPC does
not solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be
disclosed but it also means that the identity of the victim should not
be discernible from any matter published in the media – Penal Code,
1860 – s.228A.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.228A(2)(c) – If applicable to minors –
Held: Where victim is a minor, s.228A(2)(c) will no longer apply
because of the enactment of POCSO which deals specifically with
minors – Thus, the words ‘or minor’ should for all intents and
purposes be deemed to be deleted 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.