Delhi HC Orders Identity Details Masked In Court Records Of Woman Who Alleged Rape, Though Accused Was Not Summoned For Rape

The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint alleging, among other offences, rape.

The Metropolitan Magistrate declined to summon the accused under Section 376 IPC, summoning them only under Section 323 IPC; the petitioner’s revision and subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC were dismissed.

The resulting orders and judgments disclosed her name, parentage and address and were available on court websites and third-party portals.

She sought masking of her identifying particulars and related relief.

Respondent No. 1 did not oppose the relief.

Section 228A IPC prohibits disclosure not only of a sexual-offence victim’s name but also of any matter that may reveal the victim’s identity; the protection applies where the offence is alleged, regardless of whether the accused is ultimately summoned or convicted for that offence.

The Court noted that Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding provision.

In State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, the Supreme Court stated that a victim’s name should not be indicated in court judgments, notwithstanding the provision’s limited application to publication of judgments.

In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that identity protection extends to any identifying matter and directed that authorities keep the victim’s identity secret.

The Court also referred to Mrs X v. Union of India, where anonymisation was used to prevent hostile discrimination or harassment of a victim.

The impugned orders and judgments disclosed the petitioner’s name and other identity markers and could be found by searching her name.

Because the complaint included an allegation under Section 376 IPC, the statutory protection attached to the allegation itself; the fact that the accused were not summoned under that section did not remove the protection.

The Court found no public interest in disclosure and considered that it could cause the victimisation and ostracism the provision seeks to prevent.

It therefore directed the relevant court authorities to mask the petitioner’s identity and permitted her to approach third-party portals and search engines for masked versions.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to mask or remove her identifying particulars from the High Court judgment, and the Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, was directed to do the same in the Magistrate’s order and Sessions Court judgment.

The petitioner was permitted to approach third-party portals, search engines and intermediaries to host masked versions or mask other material relating to the proceedings that disclosed her identity.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.