Former Supreme Court Justice and newly appointed chairperson of the UN Internal Justice Council, Justice Madan B Lokur, stated that media houses which revealed the identity of the Anna University student who was sexually assaulted on campus on December 23 must publicly apologise and face prosecution. In an interview with The News Minute, the judge emphasized that while there is no legal restriction on media reporting based on the FIR in a rape case, disclosing the victim's identity is strictly prohibited. In 2018, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta authored a landmark judgment in the Nipun Saxena case, establishing guidelines for media reporting on sexual offenses.
The leak of the First Information Report (FIR) in the Chennai Anna University sexual assault case had sparked much outrage. The Tamil Nadu police and the state government were widely criticized for briefly making the FIR, which had details of the victim, publicly available.
Greater Chennai City Police Commissioner A Arun attributed the error to a technical glitch which occurred when the sections in the FIR were being transitioned from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) platform in the system. The National Information Centre (NIC) via a letter to the Chennai police, also said that the technical glitch may have caused the leak and said that they were revisiting the code.
So far, the Chennai police has registered a separate FIR against the two Tamil channels for revealing the identity of the student-survivor. They have been booked under section 72 (penalty for breach of privacy and confidentiality) and 67(a) (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act.
In a press conference held on December 27 police commissioner A Arun elaborated on the error but added that while an FIR in such cases should not be leaked, “in the same way downloading it and reporting on it is also a crime.” He added that cases will be filed against those who reported on the FIR and disclosed the victim’s identity.
While the uploading of a FIR related to sexual offenses is prohibited, justice Madan B Lokur, explained that downloading it or reporting based on such an FIR is not a crime.
“The FIR is ultimately an allegation made by an informant. There is no ban on reporting based on an FIR,” he said and added “However, in a case like this, one has to be very careful because revealing the name would be an offence. You can download the FIR, redact the name and particulars while reporting.”
In this particular case, justice Madan B Lokur said that while the revealing of the identity by media platforms should be treated as an offense “in this case, mistakes were committed by everybody including the police. So first, a public apology must be issued by all involved.”
In 2016, the Supreme Court directed that all states and union territories in India must upload the FIRs into the CCTN system within the first 24 hours of registration. Police stations located in remote areas with poor internet connectivity were given an extended amount of time up to 72 hours.
The only exception in uploading the FIR onto the public domain is when the case is a sensitive matter pertaining to insurgency or sexual offenses against women and children.
Other than Supreme Court guidelines, there are also laws that prohibit the media from disclosing the identity of the victim. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealt with the public disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual abuse. As per the law, anyone responsible for the disclosure can face up to two years of imprisonment, a fine or both.
In the new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, section 72 also deals with the offense of revealing a survivor's identity with a punishment of a two year jail term, fine or both. Furthermore section 73 of the BNS also states that printing or publishing the court proceeding details in sexual assault cases is also counted as a punishable offense as per law.
The preservation of a victim’s identity and dignity was further emphasised in a landmark Supreme Court judgement called the ‘The case of Nipun Saxena Vs Union of India, 2018.’
It was passed after hearing a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena in December 2018. The bench comprising of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta issued nine important directives concerning the privacy and reputation of victims of sexual assault related crimes.
The order is rooted in the understanding that, in our society, victims of sexual offenses are “treated worse than the perpetrator of the crime.”
“No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large,” read one of the directives.
The order also emphasizes that FIRs registered under offenses of sexual assault of adults or minors “shall not be put in the public domain.” The order holds the police responsible for keeping documents in which the victim’s name is disclosed in a sealed cover. It also states that all authorities who are aware of the victim’s identity are “duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret.”
The judgment emphasizes the importance of section 228A of the IPC which dealt with the offence of disclosure of victim’s identity but also noted that the law does not define what it means by prohibiting the printing or publishing “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the person”
“We are clearly of the view that the phrase “matter which may make known the identity of the person” 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,” clarified the two-judge bench.
The court observed that the intention of the law makers was to ensure that victims of sexual offenses do not face any hostile discrimination, harassment or ostracization in society. The bench noted how victims of such crimes often find it difficult to get a job, get married or feel “integrated in society like a normal human being” and added that because the law does provide for adequate witness protection programmes, the need to hide the victim’s identity is far greater.
It also makes it clear that when it uses the term ‘media’, it refers to “all types of media including press, electronic and social media.”
In other instances as well, courts have come down heavily on media organisations who have revealed the identity of a victim of sexual assault. In August 2024, the apex court referred to the Nipun Saxena judgement and ordered the removal of the name, photos and videos of the victim in the RG Kar Medical College case in Kolkata. In 2018, several media houses were fined Rs.10 lakh and asked to apologise for revealing the identity of the 8-year-old victim in the Kathua case.