Liability U/S 23 POCSO Act Extends To Reporter, Contributor Of News Disclosing Minor's Identity: Meghalaya High Court

Justice B. Bhattacharjee emphasised that the intention of the legislature behind the enactment of this provision is that the identity of a child should not be disclosed directly or indirectly. 

"Section 23 of the POCSO Act prohibits disclosure of identity of a child in any manner. The intention of the legislature is that the identity of a child should not be disclosed directly or indirectly and the privacy and the reputation of the child should not be harmed. Any particular which may lead to the identification of a child cannot be disclosed in the media. Any person committing breach of the said requirement of law shall be prosecuted in terms of Section 23(4) of the said Act."

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the arraignment of three individuals in a case involving the disclosure of a child victim's identity in violation of the Act.

Background of the Case:

The case began with a complaint filed by a child rights activist, Miguel Queah, who alleged the violation of the confidentiality of a child victim of abuse by certain newspapers. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against three individuals. The petitioners were later arraigned as co-accused based on an application under Section 319 CrPC.

Assailing their arraignment as accused, the petitioners contended that since they were neither publishers nor owners of the newspapers but merely individuals who shared information about the incident, they could not be held liable under Section 23(3) of the POCSO Act. They argued that their action did not constitute an offence as per the Act's provisions.

In response, the State argued that Section 23 of the POCSO Act applies broadly to anyone involved in the disclosure of a child victim's identity, including reporters or contributors of news. The prosecution highlighted that the Act specifically prohibits any form of media from revealing the identity of a child, and contravention of this provision would lead to criminal liability.

Court's Observations:

After analysing the provisions of Section 23 of the POCSO Act and related legal precedents the court emphasized that the Act's intention was to safeguard the identity, privacy, and reputation of the child victim. It clarified that the law does not restrict its application to publishers and owners of media outlets alone; reporters or contributors of news are equally liable for violating the Act.

Citing Gambhirsinh R Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Anr 2013 the bench underscored that any person, regardless of their role, must not disclose the identity of a child victim.

“..sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the POCSO Act do not limit on the application of penal provisions of Section 23 of the Act only to the editor, owner or publisher of the media or studio or photographic facilities, rather the provision makes them jointly and severally liable with all other persons who contravene the provisions of Section 23 of the Act”.

Ruling that the petitioners do not have any immunity from being prosecuted under the law in the event of contravention of the provision of Section 23 of the POCSO Act by them the bench concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned order passed by the Special (POCSO) Judge.

Thus, it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Shri Eric Ranee & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr.

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment