Confidentiality of sexual offence victims: identity disclosure is barred, with limited court-authorised exceptions and pseudonymous appeals allowed.

Statutory confidentiality protections for sexual offence victims prohibit both direct and indirect disclosure of identity in print, electronic and social media, as well as in court records and FIRs. For adult rape victims, Section 228A of the IPC bars publication of any material that may identify the victim, and authorities must keep identifying particulars confidential, preferably in sealed cover. For child victims under POCSO, identity must remain protected during investigation, trial and reporting, and disclosure is allowed only by the Special Court when it is in the child's interest, with reasons recorded. A victim may pursue appellate proceedings under a pseudonymous name, with identity verified in sealed cover.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the identity of adult victims of rape can be disclosed in print, electronic or social media, or in court records and FIRs; (ii) Whether the identity of child victims under POCSO can be disclosed and, if so, in what circumstances; (iii) Whether a victim may be permitted to pursue appellate proceedings under a pseudonymous name without public disclosure of identity.

Issue (i): Whether the identity of adult victims of rape can be disclosed in print, electronic or social media, or in court records and FIRs.

Analysis: Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 forbids printing or publishing not only the name of the victim but also any matter that may make the victim identifiable. The protection extends to indirect disclosure through surrounding facts, images or contextual details. The Court also held that FIRs in rape cases should not be placed in the public domain and that police and other authorities must keep identifying particulars confidential, preferably in sealed cover, so that the victim is not subjected to harassment, ridicule or social ostracism.

Conclusion: Disclosure of the identity of adult rape victims is prohibited, save in the limited situations recognised by law and subject to the safeguards directed by the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the identity of child victims under POCSO can be disclosed and, if so, in what circumstances.

Analysis: The Court read Sections 24(5), 23, 33(7) and 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as imposing a strict bar on disclosure of a child victim's identity during investigation, trial and media reporting. The identity of the child includes family, school, relatives, neighbourhood and any other particulars by which the child may be traced. Disclosure may be permitted only by the Special Court and only when it is in the interest of the child, with reasons recorded in writing. The Court stressed that reporting must remain sensitive and must not directly or indirectly reveal the child's identity.

Conclusion: The identity of a child victim is protected as a rule, and disclosure is permissible only by the Special Court in the child's interest.

Issue (iii): Whether a victim may be permitted to pursue appellate proceedings under a pseudonymous name without public disclosure of identity.

Analysis: The Court held that a victim whose name must remain confidential may seek permission to file and pursue an appeal in a coded or pseudonymous name, while necessary identifying documents may be kept in sealed cover for judicial scrutiny. The public record and cause list should not reveal the victim's identity. This direction was issued to preserve confidentiality while still allowing access to appellate remedies.

Conclusion: A victim may prosecute appellate proceedings under a pseudonymous name subject to judicial verification of identity in sealed cover.

Final Conclusion: The decision lays down comprehensive confidentiality safeguards for adult rape victims and child victims of sexual offences, and directs that all institutions involved in investigation, trial and reporting must preserve anonymity except where disclosure is specifically authorised under law.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory prohibitions on disclosure of a sexual offence victim's identity extend to direct and indirect identification, and any permitted disclosure must be narrowly confined to the exceptions expressly authorised by law and by the competent court.

---