The Delhi High Court has directed the masking of a sexual offence complainant’s name and other identifying details from judicial orders and judgments, observing that the statutory protection against disclosure of a victim’s identity applies even where the accused persons were not summoned for the offence of rape.
Justice Amit Mahajan passed the order on a petition filed by a woman seeking to mask her identity in judicial records relating to her complaint alleging rape and other offences.
The petitioner contended that her identifying details were publicly accessible through court records and that their circulation had exposed her to harassment and social ostracism. The original complaint was filed in 2007, but the Magistrate declined to summon the accused for rape in 2011, summoning them only for an offence under Section 323 IPC. Her subsequent revision and petition before the Delhi High Court were dismissed.
The Court observed that the petitioner was not an accused seeking the right to be forgotten, but the complainant and alleged victim of a sexual offence. It held that the protection under Section 228A IPC, now Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, attaches to the allegation itself. It is therefore immaterial that the accused were not summoned for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
It referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004) 1 SCC 475 and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703, which held that the prohibition extends beyond the victim’s name to any particulars that may reveal her identity. The Court noted that the disclosure of the petitioner’s identity served no public interest and only resulted in the very victimisation that Section 228A IPC seeks to prevent.
Accordingly, it directed the Delhi High Court Registry and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, to mask or remove the petitioner’s name and identifying particulars from the relevant judicial orders and judgments.
The petitioner was also permitted to approach third-party portals, search engines and intermediaries to host masked versions of the documents. The Court observed that such platforms would be expected to comply with Section 228A IPC and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena.
