Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Media houses cannot plead ignorance every time they breach the law. In a recent case Nipun Saxena vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India declared that the name of the rape victim or her identity, where she is unsound or dead, should not be disclosed even if the next of kin give consent thereto. Nevertheless, if the competent authority finds that justifiable circumstances exist, it can permit the disclosure of the victim's identity. Post 10 days from the date of the verdict, the media violated the Supreme Court directions.
On December 20, the Bombay High Court awarded a death penalty to the offender for the offence of rape and murder of a 23-year old woman in 2014. Reports about this incident by the media included the victim’s name, and they also published her image. All the prominent media houses including Times Now, Mumbai Mirror, the New Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and First Post violated the directions issued by the Apex Court.
Pleading ignorance should not become an option to the media. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 explicitly provides for the non-disclosure of the rape victim’s name. Where the victim is unsound or dead, only a recognized welfare institution or organisation can disclose the identity of the victim, and it is mandatory to obtain the consent of the next of kin. Kathua rape case is a notable precedent and a lesson for the media houses, but unfortunately, they failed to learn. In that case, similar violation by the media had them pay a penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs towards Victim Compensation Fund.
Not only the media companies, but even some of the judicial institutions remained negligent in maintaining the anonymity of the rape victim. In 2003, the apex court comprising Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat observed that the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence must be taken into serious account. Keeping in view section 228A, any court, for that matter, should not disclose the identity of the victim, which is the very purpose for the court to use the word ‘Victim’ in the judgements.
Unfortunately, the supreme court has been negligent in several instances. The judgement of the Bombay High Court mentioned the victim’s name almost 44 times in a judgement. It is pertinent to note that the courts have had a discriminative approach in dealing with similar cases when it involves high profiles.
Another angle of argument states that the anonymity of victim brings shame to the victim, and attaching woman’s sexuality with her dignity is a social construct rooted in patriarchal concepts like ‘honour’ and ‘chastity’. Poet Kamal Dad had said that impurity of rape would be washed off after a Dettol bath. Hence, rape should be seen as a crime against the body, and it must lead to the isolation of the personhood of the victim.
Law operates in tune with social reality. Although the counter-argument appears meritorious and deserves applause, social realities push the interpreters of the law to take into account the existing sensibilities of the community. Law is not always transformative. Therefore, strict adherence to the directions is necessitated.
86540
103860
630
114
59824