Today(17th Sept),The Supreme Court of India has ordered Wikipedia to remove the name and photograph of the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder victim, emphasizing the legal protection of rape victims’ identities. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reiterated that Indian law strictly prohibits disclosing such details in sexual assault cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(17th Sept), the Supreme Court of India issued a directive ordering Wikipedia to immediately remove the name and photograph of the victim who was tragically raped and murdered at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata on August 9. This move comes as part of the ongoing investigation into the heinous crime and highlights the importance of protecting the identity of rape victims under Indian law.
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasized that the identity of the victim must be erased from the platform as per Indian law, which strictly prohibits the disclosure of such details in cases involving sexual assault. The court sternly remarked,
“The victim’s identity is still present on Wikipedia. Indian law prohibits this. Wikipedia should comply with our previous order. The victim’s identity must be removed from the website.”
This decision underscores the judicial system’s vigilance in safeguarding the rights and dignity of victims, especially in cases that involve such grave offenses.
During the same hearing, the Supreme Court expressed its satisfaction with the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) handling of the case thus far. The investigation has led to significant developments, including the arrest of the Station House Officer (SHO) involved in the case. However, the court remained cautious about disclosing too many details of the ongoing probe, fearing that it could hinder the investigation.
Chief Justice Chandrachud stated-
“The CBI’s approach is focused on uncovering the truth. The SHO has already been arrested. After reviewing the status report, we found that all concerns we raised have been addressed, including the filing of the charge sheet, the post-mortem process, possible destruction of evidence, and any collusion with others, among other issues.”
Adding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, voiced concerns regarding the potential impact of revealing too many details at this stage.
“My concern is that any revelations should not end up benefiting the accused. We are being extremely careful with the charge sheet to ensure that nothing works in favor of the accused.”
-Mehta said.
The victim’s father has also played a critical role in the case, submitting a letter to the Supreme Court that raised several requests regarding the ongoing investigation. The bench took the letter into consideration during the proceedings, noting that many of the concerns highlighted by the victim’s father had already been addressed by the CBI. However, the court also acknowledged that some of the points raised were indeed important and warranted further attention.
Chief Justice Chandrachud commented-
“The victim’s father has raised several concerns, most of which the CBI has addressed in their investigation. However, a few key issues remain unresolved.”
This statement highlights the court’s willingness to consider the input of the victim’s family while ensuring that the investigation remains impartial and thorough.
One of the most alarming moments in the hearing came when the court revealed that the CBI’s investigation had uncovered deeply troubling facts.
“The report of the CBI investigation is extremely disturbing. We cannot discuss this in the courtroom,”
-said Chief Justice Chandrachud, underscoring the gravity of the case. He reiterated the court’s stance on not disclosing details of the investigation at this time, stating that doing so could potentially “jeopardise the line of investigation.”
Adding further, the Chief Justice remarked-
“Apart from the principal, the Station House Officer (SHO) was also arrested. So let us wait.”
This suggests that while there have been significant developments in the case, the investigation is far from over, and more revelations may come to light in the future.
In a particularly notable aspect of the hearing, the court addressed concerns raised by Solicitor General Mehta regarding the depiction of the victim’s hairstyle across various platforms. While it may seem trivial, this issue is significant because such representations could indirectly reveal the victim’s identity, which is a violation of Indian law in cases of sexual assault. The court’s focus on this matter further illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the anonymity of victims.
The court took a strong stance on this issue, ordering Wikipedia to immediately comply with its directives. The bench emphasized that failing to remove such content could interfere with the ongoing investigation, stating-
“It will not be fair to disclose the leads of CBI as this would only lead to dislocation of the investigation.”
The CBI submitted a fresh status report to the Supreme Court during the hearing, outlining the various aspects of the investigation. Chief Justice Chandrachud described the contents of the report as “worse,” reflecting the court’s concern over the severity of the findings. The bench, visibly disturbed by the revelations, refrained from going into further detail during the public hearing.
The CBI is currently investigating multiple critical aspects of the case, including whether the statutory challan for the post-mortem was submitted correctly, and whether there was any tampering with evidence or destruction of key materials at the crime scene. Chief Justice Chandrachud noted, “It would be unwise for us to disclose anything further” at this point in time, reinforcing the need for confidentiality to maintain the integrity of the investigation.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the victim’s father had suggested several leads for the investigation. While these suggestions were not made public, the Chief Justice assured that they were valuable and would be taken into consideration by the CBI.
“We are not making these suggestions public, but they are valuable inputs,”
– he said, adding that the central probe agency should give them due attention.
Solicitor General Mehta confirmed that the CBI was open to the court’s recommendations, stating that the agency would indeed consider the victim’s father’s inputs.
Despite the progress made, the court recognized the challenges faced by the CBI, particularly a “five-day delay” that has hampered the investigation’s pace. Nevertheless, the court remains optimistic that justice will prevail and has urged patience as the investigation continues.
After reviewing the CBI’s September 12 letter, the court concluded that several issues raised by the victim’s father were still being actively investigated, and no final conclusions could be drawn at this stage.
