Delhi HC’s Legal Action Intensifies Over Violation of Victim’s Privacy Laws
The Delhi High Court’s recent hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has brought to the forefront critical issues regarding the disclosure of identities of sexual offense victims, especially minors. The PIL, filed by activist Makrand Suresh Mhadlekar, challenges Gandhi’s social media posts that included photographs with the parents of a nine-year-old girl who was allegedly raped and murdered in Delhi’s Purana Nangal area in 2021.
Rahul Gandhi, in response to the court’s proceedings, has agreed to delete the contentious social media post. His counsel provided an oral undertaking before a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna. This decision came after the court expressed its reluctance to pass a judicial order directing Gandhi to take down the tweet, indicating a preference for voluntary compliance.
The case’s background involves a tragic incident where the minor girl was allegedly raped and murdered by a priest inside a crematorium. Gandhi’s visit to the victim’s family and the subsequent posting of their picture on social media, formerly Twitter, became the subject of legal scrutiny. The petitioner argued that this act violated the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which prohibit the disclosure of the identity of minor victims of sexual offenses.
During the hearing, Delhi Police’s counsel, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, presented a significant twist, stating that there was no scientific evidence to suggest that the girl was raped or murdered. He informed the court that the investigation regarding Rahul Gandhi’s tweet was ongoing and complex. Tripathi emphasized,
“My report is already on record. Details of the investigation are mentioned. If anything further is required, I’ll put it up in a sealed cover. Unless the first part is proved, which is the main crime, subsequent circulation of anything on Twitter is not a crime.”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the petitioner, countered this by stating that the allegations’ veracity at the time of Gandhi’s post was not the central issue. Instead, the focus was on the disclosure of the minor’s identity, which is an offense under the POCSO Act, regardless of the crime’s eventual determination. Jethmalani argued,
“At the time of the post, it was alleged and all the information available with the police was of rape. At that time she was a rape victim. Tomorrow the case may abate. Four people have been arrested for rape in this case. If they [Delhi Police] think she was not raped, they must file a closure report.”
The court has directed the Delhi Police to file a detailed and comprehensive status report in a sealed cover, detailing the current status of the investigation concerning Rahul Gandhi, within four weeks. The next hearing is scheduled for January 24, 2024.
This case underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the legal obligation to protect the identity of victims of sexual crimes, particularly minors. It also highlights the responsibilities of public figures in handling sensitive information and the legal repercussions of violating protective statutes like the JJ Act and POCSO Act. The reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India further emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the privacy and dignity of sexual offense victims. The petitioner’s call for legal action against Gandhi and the registration of an FIR under the POCSO Act reflects the seriousness of such disclosures and the need for stringent adherence to legal provisions protecting minors’ identities.
Also read-Lok Sabha Passes Key Bill On Election Commission Appointments Amid Debate (lawchakra.in)