SC Stays Rajasthan HC Order Denying Relief To India Today For Disclosing German Rape Survivor’s Name

The Supreme Court has stayed the Rajasthan High Court judgment which had refused to quash charges levied against India Today for disclosure of the name of a German rape survivor.

A Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abdul Nazeer, on Friday, issued notice in the matter and stayed the operation of the judgment.

India Today CEO Ashish  Bagga (now resigned) and others, sought to defend an article published in the India Today Magazine in March, 2006, and had challenged an order passed in 2006, whereby the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of an application under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits disclosure of identity of the rape victim during trial.

 Bagga had contended that the reporting was bona fide, and that the name of the victim had, in fact, already been disclosed in the judgment pertaining to the conviction of her assailants. It was further submitted that the disclosure of the victim’s identity was made nine months after the completion of the trial, and hence, such disclosure did not hamper an ongoing proceeding or investigation, so as to fall within the purview of Section 228A.

It was also submitted before the Court that the victim had already voluntarily given interviews to several newspapers and media houses, without concealing her identity.

Justice Pushpenda Singh Bhati had, however, refused to accept their contentions, and had pointed out that the printing of an article with the victim’s name was different from revelation of her name in a judgment.

The High Court had then observed, “There is no exception to Section 327(3) Cr.P.C. and printing and publication in the present case cannot be compared with the printing and publication of the judgments, as printing and publication of the judgments is a matter of record, which remains within the ambit of matured legal fraternity and would not be disclosed, until someone specifically goes for it. In case of printing and publication in the media, the same is to be consumed by an ordinary citizen, and thus, the embargo created under Section 327 Cr.P.C. ought to be strictly maintained, so as to ensure that the purpose of protecting the identity of the victim of sexual offence is fully served.”

Justice Bhati had further noted that the lower Court was right in its observation that Section 327 of Cr.P.C. and Section 228A of IPC were broadly attracted in the case at hand, and had observed, “The justification given by the petitioners that the name of the victim was already there in the public domain cannot be accepted, as according to Section 327 Cr.P.C. and Section 228A IPC, with particular reference to such illegality, the publication and printing in the ambit shall have a connotation, which has to be strict, so as to protect the dignity and confidentiality of the victim suffering such humiliating crime.”