Bombay HC Issues Directions To Media Over Reportage Of Rape Cases To Protect Identities Of Victims

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Aurangabad-bench of the Bombay High Court recently additional guidelines to restrain print & electronic media, as well as the common public using social media, from publishing information on rape cases, ‘directly or indirectly’ disclosing the identity of the victims. The bench, while disposing a PIL filed by a rape survivor’s mother (Sangita v. State of Maharashtra), mentioned that despite the provisions under sec. 228 (A) of the IPC and directions having issued by the Supreme Court (in Nipun Saxena & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.). The petitioner also alleged that due to the offence of rape, the victim also suffers from physical and mental trauma and publication of the news thereby disclosing the identity of the victim causes serious agony to the victim. 

GUIDELINES ISSUED BY COURT

The Court highlighted the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 2018, along with the provisions mentioned in the IPC and POCSO regarding disclosure of information in cases related to rape.

In the case of Nipun Saxena v. UOI, the Supreme Court had issued several essential guidelines to protect the privacy and reputation of victims of rape crimes. The bench consisted of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta. In addition to the that, the Bombay HC issued directions to print media, electronic media, and the people using social media like Whatsapp, Facebook, Internet, Twitter, etc. The Court held that print media, electronic media, people using social medial, while circulating information regarding offences under POCSO Act, and under sec. 376, 376 (A), 376 (B), 376 (C), 376 (D), or 376 (E) of the IPC, shall not publish/disclose following information that threatens to reveal the identity of the victim directly/indirectly.

The media ought to restrain disclosure and publishing information related to the names of parents or relatives of the victim, relation of the accused with the victim, residential/occupational/work address of the accused and victim, and the village where the accused and/or victim reside in.

“The media should act with circumspection and is expected to observe restraint. Publishing news item in detail thereby disclosing identity of the victim itself indicates that the media does not observe self-restrain.”

The court, however, clarified that it does not mean that the media deliberately divulge the details and stated:

“But in their zeal to publish the news item fast, appropriate care is not taken in some cases and the news is reported by which the victim’s identity becomes known to the readers.”

The HC also directed that details related to occupations of the parents or relatives of the victim, along with their places of work, should be avoided so as to avoid revelation of the victim. It was directed that if the victim is a student, the media should restrain from mentioning the name of the school or college, or any other educational institution or private coaching classes or classes which the victim has joined for pursuing her hobbies. It also stated that the media should avoid giving out details related to the family background of the victim.

The court also issued guidelines for trial proceedings, by passing directives to trial courts and special POCSO courts and investigating officers. Justice Sewlikar, additionally observed that the victim’s name is disclosed during the framing of charge, or recording evidence and statement of the accused, under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it was directed that mentioning the name of the victim should be avoided while framing charges. Instead, he/she ought to be referred to as ‘X’ or any other alphabet the court deems appropriate. While recording evidence, if the witness states the name of the victim, the court shall record that as ‘the witness stated the name of the victim but to conceal her identity, her name is not recorded.’ Additionally, the witness’s name, in case he/she is a victim, should also not be disclosed while recording evidence.

Advocate A.D. Ostwal, appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court, submitted that electronic media, containing interviews of the victim or his/her relatives, tend to disclose the identity of the victim by his/her voice even if the face is blurred. The bench directed the interviewers, as well as the general public using electronic media, to take precautions to prevent disclosure of the identity of the victim.

The Judicial Registrar was directed to bring the aforementioned guidelines to the notice of:

• Registrar General of the Court for circulating to all subordinate courts;
• Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra;
• Principal Secretary & RLA, Law and Judiciary Department;
• Secretary of Indian Broadcasting Foundation, New Delhi; and
• Secretary of Press Council of India, New Delhi. 

CONCLUSION

In view of the above directions, the PIL was disposed of. The Bombay HC has issued some appreciable directions to media houses in light of the harassment and distortion of facts due to excessive and invasive media coverage. Hopefully, this order brings notable changes in the ethics of reportage, adhering to the privacy and reputation of victims. 

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS REGARDING THE ETHICS OF REPORTAGE REGARDING RAPE CASES? DO YOU THINK JUDICIAL GUIDELINES ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP MEDIA HOUSES AND CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION IN CHECK? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment