Sunday, Apr 28, 2024 | Last Update : 01:08 PM IST
Supreme Court says victims of rape can’t be named, shamed
The bench, which agreed to examine the aspect related to Section 228-A of the IPC.
New Delhi: Even the dead have dignity. They cannot be “named or shamed.”
This was the observation of the Supreme Court on Tuesday as it dealt with the issue of disclosure of identity of rape victims, including the eight-year-old girl who was raped and brutally murdered recently in Kathua in J&K.
It said that even in cases where the rape victims were alive and were either minors or of unsound mind, their identities should not be revealed as they have the right to privacy and they cannot live under such a “stigma” throughout their life.
“Think of the dignity of dead also. It (media reporting) can be done without naming or shaming them. The dead also have dignity,” a bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta said while hearing the matter in which senior lawyer Indira Jaising raked up the issue of Section 228-A of the IPC which deals with disclosure of identity of victims of sexual offences.
The bench, which agreed to examine the aspect related to Section 228-A of the IPC, also questioned as to how the identity of a minor rape victim could be disclosed even after getting consent from her parents.
“Why should this happen, that the identity of a minor victim be disclosed just because her parents have given consent,” the bench asked, adding, “Even if a person is of unsound mind, she has a right to privacy. A minor will become major. Why should this stigma be there for life”.
Ms Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, said it was necessary for the apex court to clarify section 228-A of the IPC. She said there cannot be a “blanket ban” on the media from reporting such incidents and the apex court would have to balance freedom of press and the rights of the victim.
Ms Jaising, without directly referring to the Kathua incident, said in a recent case, the victim had died which had led to demand for justice not only in India but also globally. The bench said it would examine the issue related to section 228-A of the IPC, after which the Centre’s counsel sought time to seek instructions. The court then listed the matter for hearing on May 8.
