SC seethes at U’khand, Bengal for naming rape survivors in affidavits
UP’S DISBURSAL PLAN DRAWS PRAISE
The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the Uttarakhand and West Bengal governments after it learned that the affidavits providing details of money given to complainants under the Nirbhaya Fund also contained the names of the rape survivors. The fund was created by the Centre after the infamous brutal gang rape and murder of the 23-year-old physiotherapy intern on December 16, 2012.
A bench of justices MB Lokur and Deepak Gupta has issued summons to the officials who reportedly signed the affidavits – Ajay RAutela, additional secretary (home), Uttarakhand; and Lalit Kumar Das, joint secretary (ministry of women and child), West Bengal. Both have been directed to appear in person within three weeks to explain why the affidavit was filed in “complete violation of the law”.
The judges also came down hard on the counsels for the two
The Supreme Court praised the Uttar Pradesh government for envisaging a proper format to disburse compensation under the Nirbhaya Fund and asked the National Legal Services Authority to study the format before finalising its compensation scheme. The bench noted that the state gives an interim compensation to the rape victim immediately after the FIR is registered, with subsequent money disbursed when the chargesheet is filed and upon conviction. HTC
states, reminding them that they, too, could be prosecuted under the law for filing such affidavits. “Don’t you know that it’s a criminal offence to name rape victims? Are you just peons?” the bench told the lawyers who sought to excuse themselves by asserting that they had simply filed the affidavits that had been prepared by the state government officials.
“How can you file affidavits without giving any thought or application of mind? This is a very serious offence. There is an earlier judgement of this court that says an advocate-on-record (AOR) will be held responsible for filing incorrect affidavits,” the bench said. An AOR is a lawyer
designated by the top court to officially file documents with the registry in a case. An advocate can become an AOR only after qualifying a written exam conducted by the apex court.
According to the sub-section (1) of section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the disclosure of identity of the survivor of certain offences, “whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of” a rape survivor “shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine”.
While West Bengal had simply named the victims, Uttarakhand went further to disclose the complete details of the victims, including the name of their fathers, addresses and the offences committed against them. Information regarding minor victims was also given out in Uttarakhand’s affidavit.
The top court is hearing a petition filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena on the formulation of a victim compensation scheme in cases of offences against women. Expressing surprise at the naming of the victims, amicus curiae in the matter, senior advocate Indira Jaising, said: “The whole victim protection regime has become vulnerable.” She said if the states were not following the law, it was not possible for a common man to do so.
The apex court gave more time to Jaising and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to prepare a model compensation scheme and gave the states “last opportunity” to respond to the plan NALSA has put on its website seeking feedback.
NEWDELHI: NEW DELHI: