Supreme Court Emphasises Protection of Identity in Sexual Offence Cases

PTI, NEW DELHI, MARCH 28, 2026: The Supreme Court has deprecated in the "strongest terms" the disclosure of identity of a girl in a rape case and directed all high courts to ensure that names of survivors and their family members are not mentioned in court orders.

In its 2018 judgement in the Nipun Saxena case, the top court had said, "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."

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh attributed lapses in following the ruling to the general indifference of the courts and "possibly even" the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences.

The top court said that the legislature in 1983 introduced a provision to the IPC seeking to protect the identity of the victim of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The amendment, it said, was made apparently to address a specific mischief that emerged starkly from the way sexual offence cases were handled: the public disclosure of a survivor's identity.

The bench thus directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all the high court registrars general. It also mentioned Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prohibits the disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences, including rape, to prevent social stigma.

"This has been the long-standing position in law, but it has not been followed. The primary reason thereamongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences," the bench said.

The observations came while setting aside an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which reversed the conviction of a man in the rape of a nine-year-old girl, saying courts must not give undue importance to minor discrepancies.

The top court said that before 1983, there was no statutory bar on publishing the name or particulars of a female sexual assault victim, alleged or proven, and court reporting and media coverage could expose survivors to social stigma, ostracism, and lifelong reputational harm.

"Clearly, the intent of this section has been given a miss in these proceedings. The name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms. In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed," the bench said.