Supreme Court tells High Courts to strictly follow mandate on non-disclosure of rape victims' identity

The court pointed out the legislature had as far back as 1983 introduced a provision into the IPC seeking to protect the identity of the victim of the offence under Section 376 IPC.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ''deprecated in strongest terms'' the disclosure of identity of a minor girl in a rape case, and asked all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that in all matters, the judgment in Nipun Saxena case in 2019 — mandating the non-disclosure of the victim’s identity — is followed strictly.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh referred to the proscription in Section 228-A IPC, saying, ''This has been the long-standing position in law but, it has not been followed. The primary reason there amongst, 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.''

Setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment which reversed conviction of a man in the rape of a nine-year-old girl, the bench said, at the outset, a disturbing fact must be acknowledged, as the name of the victim was treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record.

In its judgment on March 24, 2026, the court pointed out the legislature had as far back as 1983 introduced a provision into IPC seeking to protect the identity of the victim of the offence under Section 376 IPC, in the aftermath of the State of Maharashtra v. Tukaram (1979).

"The amendment 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 said.

Before 1983, the court noted, there was no statutory bar on publishing the name or particulars of a woman against whom a sexual offence was alleged; court reporting and media coverage could expose survivors to social stigma, ostracism, and lifelong reputational harm.

"This perspective is reflected in academic discussions on the evolution of the law on sexual assault, which identify the 1983 amendments as marking the beginning of a victim-centred orientation in Indian criminal law; protections such as in-camera trials, evidentiary presumptions, and anonymity were designed to reduce the barriers and fears that previously discouraged reporting and effective prosecution of sexual offences,'' the bench said.

"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,'' the bench added.

In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed, the bench pointed out. The court directed that a copy of this judgment should be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure the adherence to the mandate of law.