Apex court hears plea on naming dead rape victims

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre if media could reveal the identity of a dead rape victim after a senior advocate opposed the blanket ban, saying a balance should be struck between freedom of press and rights of a victim.

Though a bench of justice MB Lokur and justice Deepak Gupta seemed to disagree with Indira Jaising, it asked additional solicitor general Pinky Anand to address her concerns over Section 228(A) of the Indian Penal Code and gave the government until May 8 to file its reply.

“Think of the dignity of dead also. Media reporting can be done without naming or shaming them. The dead also have dignity,” the court said to Jaising’s contention that sometimes publishing names could help the victim’s family get justice.

The debate over Section 228(A), which deals with revealing identity of sexual assault victims, was reignited recently when some media houses were fined for naming an eight-yearold girl who was gang-raped and murdered in Jammu’s Kathua.

Jaisingh is representing the girl’s family that has petitioned the court for trial to be moved out of the state.

Section 228(A) bars publication of names and printing of photographs of rape victims, until the victim or the family gives consent. If the victim is dead, a minor or of unsound mind, the permission has to be given by the next of kin to the chairman or a secretary of any recognised welfare association.

Citing the provisions, the judges said the identity of rape victims should not be revealed, as they had the right to privacy and couldn’t live under a “stigma”. “There was no reason to withhold the name of a dead person as there was no question of rehabilitation...,” Jaising responded.

The bench was also against revealing the identity of a minor rape victim even after taking the consent from her parents.

“There should be no consent even by the family members,” the two judges said.

The government had not notified the welfare organisations where families of dead victims could give consent for names to be used in media reports, Jaising said. The court asked Anand to get the government’s view on this aspect as well and fixed May 8 to hear the matter again.

The observation came after Jaising, who is assisting the court in case related to sexual offences, raised the issue of Section 228-A and sought clarification on it.