Ms X vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors.

$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 29 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010341952023
+ W.P.(C) 11525/2023
MS X .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Apar Gupta, Ms. Pragya
Jain, Mr. Yashpriya Saharan,
Mr. Sahil Mander & Mr. Rahul,
Advs. for R-3.
Mr. Sandeep Vishnu, SPC for
R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction directing the Ld. Courts below and the Registry of the Hon'ble
High Court to mask the name and other particulars of the Petitioner in the
judgement dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in
Complaint Case No. 257/1/2008, judgement dated 08.05.2013 passed by
Ld. Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Rev. No. 76/2013 and Crl. Rev. No.
8/2012 and the judgement dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Single Judge of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 3559/2013 and Crl. M.A.
No. 12983/2013;
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order or
direction against the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 directing them to pull
down the above-mentioned judgments from their respective web portals or
mask the name and other particulars of the Petitioner while W.P.(C)-
11525/2023 reporting the judgement or order in the case of the Petitioner;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 1 of 8

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order or
direction against the Respondent No.6 directing them to ensure that
appropriate steps are taken by the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to pull
down the abovementioned judgements from their respective web portals or
mask the name and other particulars of the Petitioner while reporting the
judgement;
d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order or
direction in rem directing that any reporting by any person or web-portal
of the judgement/order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 257/1/2008, judgement dated
08.05.2013 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Rev. No.
76/2013 and Crl. Rev. No. 8/2012 and the judgement dated 08.07.2016
passed by the Single Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C.
No. 3559/2013 and Crl. M.A. No. further/future 12983/2013 any or
judgement/orders in these cases should mask the name and other
particulars of the parties;
e) Pass such further order(s) in favor of the Petitioner and against the
Respondent in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner had instituted Complaint Case
No. 257/1/2008 on 17.02.2007 before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, alleging the commission of offences under Sections
324/325/376/506(2)/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter
referred to as ‘IPC’ ) against the respondents therein. The petitioner,
thus, is the complainant and the alleged victim of a sexual offence in
the said proceedings.
3. By the summoning order dated 12.09.2011, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate declined to summon the accused persons for
the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, and summoned the
respondents only for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition, being Crl.
Rev. No. 76/2013 (RBT) (Old No. Crl. Rev. No. 8/2012) , which was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 2 of 8

dated 08.05.2013. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by
way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, being CRL.M.C. 3559/2013 & CRL.M.A.
12983/2013 , which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2016.
4. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved that the aforesaid orders
and judgments disclose the petitioner’s name, parentage and address,
and are readily available on the website of this Court, the website of
the District Courts, and on third-party portals, namely Respondent
Nos. 3 to 5, which have reported without masking.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that a simple search of the
petitioner’s name on the internet leads to the said orders and
judgments, and that the accused persons have circulated copies thereof
among her neighbours, as a result of which she has been subjected to
daily taunts, physical violence and social ostracism. It is further
submitted that the said proceedings pertained, inter alia , to an
allegation of an offence under Section 376 of the IPC, and Section
228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (‘BNS’) , prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a person
against whom such an offence is alleged.
6. The petitioner consequently seeks a direction to the respondents
to mask her name and other identity markers in the summoning order
dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in
Complaint Case No. 257/1/2008 , the judgment dated 08.05.2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Rev. No.
76/2013 (RBT) (Old No. Crl. Rev. No. 8/2012) , and the judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 3 of 8

dated 08.07.2016 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 3559/2013 &
CRL.M.A. 12983/2013 . The petitioner further seeks a direction to
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to pull down the said orders and judgments
from their respective web portals, or to mask her name and other
particulars therein, and a direction to Respondent No.6 to ensure that
such steps are taken by Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner also
seeks a direction that any reporting of the said orders and judgments,
or of any future order in the said proceedings, by any person or web
portal, shall mask the name and other particulars of the parties.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is not an accused
seeking to be forgotten. The petitioner is the victim/complainant of an
alleged sexual offence. Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of
the BNS, bars disclosure of the identity of any person against whom
such an offence is ‘alleged or found to have been committed’ . The
protection attaches to the allegation itself. It is, therefore, immaterial
that the accused persons were not summoned for the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka
v. Puttaraja (2004) 1 SCC 475 , while refraining from mentioning the
name of the victim therein, had emphasised that the name of the
victim of a sexual offence should not be indicated in the judgment of
any Court. While doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:
“2. We do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") makes disclosure of identity
of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 4 of 8

any matter which may make known the identity of any person against
whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is
alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the
restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by the
High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of
preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted , it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court, the High Court or the lower
court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to
describe her as "the victim" in the judgment.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena v.
Union of India : (2019) 2 SCC 703, while examining the scope of
Section 228A of the IPC, had emphasised that the bar is not confined
to the name of the victim alone, but extends to any matter from which
her identity may be discerned, so that she does not face hostile
discrimination or harassment in the future. While doing so, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and directed as follows:
“11. Neither IPC nor CrPC define the phrase "identity of any person".
Section 228-A IPC clearly prohibits the printing or publishing "the name
or any matter which may make known the identity of the person". It is
obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is
prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make
known the identity of such victim. We are clearly of the view that the
phrase "matter which may make known the identity of the person" does not
solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be disclosed but it
also means that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from
any matter published in the media. The intention of the law-makers was
that the victim of such offences should not be identifiable so that they do
not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future.
xxx
50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following directions:
50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc.
the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts
which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her
identity known to the public at large.
50.2. In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind the name of the
victim or her identity should not be disclosed even under the authorisation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 5 of 8

of the next of kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure of her
identity exist, which shall be decided by the competent authority, which at
present is the Sessions Judge.
50.3. FIRs relating to offences under Sections 376, 376-A. 376-AB, 376-B,
376-C. 376-D. 376-DA. 376-DB or 376-E IPC and the offences under
Pocso shall not be put in the public domain.
50.4. In case a victim files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, it is not
necessary for the victim to disclose his/her identity and the appeal shall be
dealt with in the manner laid down by law.
50.5. The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name
of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace
these documents by identical documents in which the name of the victim is
removed in all records which may be scrutinised in the public domain.
50.6. All the authorities to which 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.
50.7. An application by the next of kin to authorise disclosure of identity of
a dead victim or of a victim of unsound mind under Section 228-A(2)(c)
IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until the
Government acts under Section 228-A(1)(c) and lays down criteria as per
our directions for d identifying such social welfare institutions or
organisations.
50.8. In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity
can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the
interest of the child.
50.9. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one
"One-Stop Centre" in every district within one year from today.
51. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars General of all the
High Courts so that the same can be placed before the Chairpersons of the
Juvenile Justice Committee of all the High Courts for issuance of
appropriate orders and directions and also to ensure that sincere efforts
are made to set up One-Stop Centres in every district.
52. In view of the above, we dispose of these petitions as far as issues dealt
with hereinabove are concerned.”
10.
Similarly, this Court in Mrs X v. Union of India:
2023:DHC:2806 , while anonymising the petitioner therein, a victim
of the non-consensual circulation of her intimate images, observed as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 6 of 8

“2. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the Petitioner
as “Mrs. X” in consonance with the directions rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703,
whereby it was observed that in a patriarchal society like India,
survivors/victims of sexual violence of any nature are forced to undergo
ostracization for no fault of their own. Therefore, to prevent hostile
discrimination or harassment of the survivor/victim in the future, this
Court believes it to be prudent to refer to the Petitioner herein as “Mrs.
X”.”
11. In the present case, the orders and judgments in question
disclose the name, parentage, and address of the victim (petitioner)
and are accessible by searching her name. At this stage, Respondent
No.1 does not oppose the relief. No public interest is served by such
disclosure, which only results in the very victimisation that Section
228A of the IPC seeks to prevent.
12. Considering the aforesaid, Respondent No.1 is directed to
mask/remove the name and identity markers of the petitioner in the
orders, including the judgment dated 08.07.2016 passed in CRL.M.C.
3559/2013 & CRL.M.A. 12983/2013 . The learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, is directed to
similarly mask/remove the name and identity markers of the petitioner
in the order dated 12.09.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.
257/1/2008 and the judgment dated 08.05.2013 passed in Crl. Rev.
No. 76/2013 (RBT) (Old No. Crl. Rev. No. 8/2012)
13. The petitioner is additionally permitted to approach all
concerned portals, including Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, public search
engines or intermediaries to host the masked version of the orders
dated 12.09.2011, 08.05.2013 and 08.07.2016 respectively, or any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 7 of 8

other material pertaining to the said proceedings wherein the name
and identity markers of the petitioner are reflected.
14. Whenever the petitioner would apply or approach any of the
search engines, third-party portals or intermediaries, it is expected that
they would follow the mandate of Section 228A of the IPC, now
Section 72 of the BNS, and the directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena (supra) , as noted hereinabove, and
mask any other material which may be on the record about the
aforementioned cases wherein the name and identity markers of the
petitioner are reflected.
15. The present petition along with pending applications stand
disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:30.10.2026
20:19:12
W.P.(C) 11525/2023 Page 8 of 8