Naming victim in GO is contempt: Activists
CHENNAI, MARCH 15, 2019 00:00 IST
Say only in December last Supreme Court had come down hard against such disclosures
Disclosure of identity of a college girl who had lodged a complaint regarding the Pollachi sexual abuse issue in a Government Order issued on Wednesday, for transferring the case to the CBI, has created an outrage among activists who claim that such a disclosure violated Supreme Court verdicts on related issues.
They recall that the Supreme Court, in a judgement delivered on December 11, 2018, had issued a set of nine directions listing how and in what manner the identity of adult victims of rape as well as child victims of sexual abuse should be protected so that they were not subjected to ridicule, social boycott and harassment.
“Though the First Information Report in the Pollachi sexual abuse issue had been booked under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 376 (rape), the latter could be included at any stage of investigation or even at the time of filing charge sheet.
“Therefore, the Supreme Court directions would squarely apply to the burning issue related sexual abuse of several young girls in Pollachi and the government ought not to have disclosed the complainant’s identity in the Government Order. This clearly amounts to contempt of court,” said Senthil Arumugam of Satta Panchayat Iyakkam, a non-governmental organisation.
In the December 2018 verdict, Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court had ordered that no person could publish the name of the victims or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which could lead to the victim being identified. They directed that FIRs relating to them should not be put in the public domain.
The judges went a step ahead and exempted the victims too from disclosing their identity when they file appeals against verdicts passed by trial courts in rape and child sexual abuse cases. The most important of the directives was to the police who were directed to protect the identity of such victims by keeping all documents in sealed covers.
“All the authorities to whom the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court,” the Supreme Court had ordered.
Pointing out that this was the latest judgment on the issue, advocate R. Sudha said, “The mighty State cannot feign ignorance about the verdict since it is a well settled proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse to escape punishment. It cannot also claim that Pollachi case had not been booked for rape because that provision could be invoked any moment.”
CHENNAI, MARCH 15, 2019 00:00 IST
Say only in December last Supreme Court had come down hard against such disclosures
Disclosure of identity of a college girl who had lodged a complaint regarding the Pollachi sexual abuse issue in a Government Order issued on Wednesday, for transferring the case to the CBI, has created an outrage among activists who claim that such a disclosure violated Supreme Court verdicts on related issues.
They recall that the Supreme Court, in a judgement delivered on December 11, 2018, had issued a set of nine directions listing how and in what manner the identity of adult victims of rape as well as child victims of sexual abuse should be protected so that they were not subjected to ridicule, social boycott and harassment.
“Though the First Information Report in the Pollachi sexual abuse issue had been booked under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 376 (rape), the latter could be included at any stage of investigation or even at the time of filing charge sheet.
“Therefore, the Supreme Court directions would squarely apply to the burning issue related sexual abuse of several young girls in Pollachi and the government ought not to have disclosed the complainant’s identity in the Government Order. This clearly amounts to contempt of court,” said Senthil Arumugam of Satta Panchayat Iyakkam, a non-governmental organisation.
In the December 2018 verdict, Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court had ordered that no person could publish the name of the victims or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which could lead to the victim being identified. They directed that FIRs relating to them should not be put in the public domain.
The judges went a step ahead and exempted the victims too from disclosing their identity when they file appeals against verdicts passed by trial courts in rape and child sexual abuse cases. The most important of the directives was to the police who were directed to protect the identity of such victims by keeping all documents in sealed covers.
“All the authorities to whom the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court,” the Supreme Court had ordered.
Pointing out that this was the latest judgment on the issue, advocate R. Sudha said, “The mighty State cannot feign ignorance about the verdict since it is a well settled proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse to escape punishment. It cannot also claim that Pollachi case had not been booked for rape because that provision could be invoked any moment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment