Disclosure Resulted In Victimisation: Delhi High Court Directs Masking Sexual Offence Victim's Name In Orders

The High Court was considering a petition seeking a direction to the Courts below to mask the name and other particulars of the Petitioner in the judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal case.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, "Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the BNS, bars disclosure of the identity of any person against whom such an offence is ‘alleged or found to have been committed’. The protection attaches to the allegation itself. It is, therefore, immaterial that the accused persons were not summoned for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC."

“In the present case, the orders and judgments in question disclose the name, parentage, and address of the victim (petitioner) and are accessible by searching her name. At this stage, Respondent No.1 does not oppose the relief. No public interest is served by such disclosure, which only results in the very victimisation that Section 228A of the IPC seeks to prevent", it added.

Advocate Apar Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner had instituted a Complaint Case before the Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 324, 325, 376, 506(2), 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the respondents. The petition was filed by the complainant and the alleged victim of a sexual offence in the said proceedings.

By the summoning order, the Metropolitan Magistrate declined to summon the accused persons for the offence under Section 376, and summoned the respondents only for the offence under Section 323. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter approached the Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed. The petitioner was aggrieved that the orders disclosed the petitioner’s name, parentage and address, and the same were readily available on the website of this Court, the website of the District Courts, and on third-party portals, which have reported orders without masking.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the orders and judgments in question disclosed the name, parentage, and address of the victim (petitioner) and were accessible by searching her name. Holding that the disclosure resulted in victimisation, the Bench directed the High Court to mask/remove the name and identity markers of the petitioner in the orders and judgment.

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), wherein, while examining the scope of Section 228A of the IPC, the Court had emphasised that the bar is not confined to the name of the victim alone, but extends to any matter from which her identity may be discerned, so that she does not face hostile discrimination or harassment in the future.

“Whenever the petitioner would apply or approach any of the search engines, third-party portals or intermediaries, it is expected that they would follow the mandate of Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the BNS, and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena (supra), as noted hereinabove, and mask any other material which may be on the record about the aforementioned cases wherein the name and identity markers of the petitioner are reflected”, it ordered.

Cause Title:Ms. X v. High Court Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9684)

Appearance

Respondent: Advocates Apar Gupta, Pragya Jain, Yashpriya Saharan, Sahil Mander, Rahul, Sandeep Vishnu

Click here to read/download Order