Gujarat High Court has refused to quash the FIR against a lawyer who disclosed a minor victim’s identity during media interviews. The Court said professional publicity cannot justify violating POCSO and Juvenile Justice laws.
Gujarat High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against a lawyer who allegedly disclosed the identity of a minor victim during a media interview in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Nirzar S Desai strongly criticized the lawyer’s conduct, saying that she had acted irresponsibly both as a professional and as a human being.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody of Rajesh Khimji & Tehseen Syed in CM Attack Case
In the order passed on September 8, the Court observed that the lawyer, being an experienced professional,
“was expected to know the law inside out and not act ‘absolutely irrationally’ or run after publicity by giving bites to the media.”
The Court noted,
“The present applicant, as it prima facie appears, has not only disclosed the name of the victim girl while giving a media bite on social media but also, when the victim girl was accompanying her, influenced the victim girl to give a media bite on social media. Therefore, a thorough investigation into the offence in question is required, as the provisions of the Act are intended to protect the privacy and modesty of a victim of an offence under the POCSO Act or the Juvenile Justice Act, as the case may be, and there is thus an inbuilt mechanism in the Act itself to protect the identity of the victim,”
The Court further said that whether the act was done with a genuine intention or was an inadvertent mistake,
“is a subject matter of investigation or trial as the stage may be, but a prima facie reading of the FIR constitutes an offence, as can be seen from the language of the FIR itself.”
The accused lawyer, who practices at Gondal and Rajkot and has been in the profession for around six years, had represented a minor girl in July 2025. The girl was booked in connection with the suicide of a person against whom she had made allegations under the POCSO Act.
Later, the lawyer, along with the minor victim and her mother, gave media statements regarding the case. Following this, the lawyer was booked under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Challenging the FIR, the lawyer’s counsel argued that the act was an inadvertent mistake and, considering her six years of practice, she deserved leniency.
It was also argued that the offence could be treated as non-cognizable and therefore, the FIR should not have been registered.
However, the Court rejected these arguments, stating,
“The question is not about pardoning the mistake of the present applicant. The question is, when a professional, merely to extract publicity, crosses the line drawn by law, whether such an act can be considered as an inadvertent mistake or not.”
The Court also highlighted that the Investigating Officer had submitted a report before the Special Court seeking permission to investigate the offence, and the judge had ruled that no permission from the magistrate was required before registering the case.
The Court added,
“I do not see any reason to show disagreement in respect of the said order, which is not even under challenge before this Court, and when the investigation has taken place pursuant to the aforesaid order, the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant that the registration of an FIR in respect of a non-cognizable offence cannot be considered at this stage, when the investigation is ongoing and the order dated 29-07-2025 has never been challenged till date,”
Concluding that a prima facie case was made out, the Court stated that merely because the applicant is an advocate, the investigation
“in respect of the offence in question cannot be stayed.”
Advocate Aftab Husen Ansari represented the accused lawyer, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ronak Raval appeared for the prosecution.
This order serves as a stern reminder that legal professionals are expected to strictly adhere to the law, especially in sensitive cases involving minors, and cannot cross legal boundaries for publicity or media attention.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Delhi 2020 Riots Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
