The Supreme Court, while dismissing a petition by Jharkhand state cabinet minister Irfan Ansari against the Jharkhand High Court's refusal to quash charges of revealing the identity of a minor rape victim, questioned whether he wanted "publicity for everything".

Appearing for Ansari, Senior Advocate Mudgha Gupta, submitted that there was no direct evidence of Ansari publishing the identity of the victim who he visited with his supporters at the hospital where the victim was being looked after. The High Court had said a prima facie case is made out against him under Section 228A (Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who was on the Bench with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, asked, "You want publicity for everything? It is only publicity. Mandatory requirements (under law) are not followed. He could have gone alone or with one person. But he went there with supporters."

Dictating the Order, the two-Judge Bench said, "Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition is placed on record. SLP is dismissed as withdrawn."

The case against Ansari is that he visited a minor rape victim, aged four years, at a hospital with his supporters to show sympathy, and after taking the name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to the media and shared on a WhatsApp group.

He was booked under Section 228-A of IPC, Section 74(1)(3) (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of children) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 23 (Procedure for Media) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In September, the High Court had rejected Ansari's Revision Petition against the Sessions Court dismissing his discharge application.

Upon looking at the ingredients of the provisions Ansari is booked under, the Court said it was of view that a prima facie case is made out under Section 228 A of the IPC. It noted that one of the witnesses, who is a news reporter, had stated that Ansari had started a WhatsApp group where the impugned messages were posted by him. Another witness had stated that the messages containing the identity of the victim were posted by Ansari's phone number.

"Thus, prima facie it shows somehow the involvement of the petitioner in disclosing the identity including the photographs of the victim over the social media via WhatsApp." the Court said.

During the course of the investigation, he had alleged that it was his secretary who had taken the details of the victim. On this submission, the High Court had said, "[C]riminal liability cannot and should not be transferred at this stage and even for examining this aspect, for proper appreciation of fact, trial is required."

The Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) set out the guidelines with regard to non-disclosure of name, identity and particulars of the victims of rape or sexual offences. The Court held that disclosure of name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclosing any fact which can lead to the victim being identified and makes her identity known to the public at large, in any form, print, electronic, social media, is an offence.

Cause Title: Irfan Ansari v. State of Jharkhand [Diary No. 57869-2024]

Justice BV NagarathnaJustice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tushar Kohli