Delhi Court Acquits Ex-DCW Head Swati Maliwal, Another In 2016 Case For Allegedly Revealing Identity Of Minor Rape Victim

A Delhi Court on Wednesday (August 13) acquitted former Delhi Commission For Women Chairperson Swati Maliwal in a 2016 FIR for allegedly revealing identity of a minor rape victim. 

Maliwal was booked along with Bhupendra Singh (PRO of DCW) under Section 74 of Juvenile Justice Act. It was alleged that as the then DCW Chairperson Maliwal had issued a notice to concerned SHO mentioning victim's name seeking details of the investigation.

It was alleged that an image of this notice along with the text of the notice, containing victim's name was forwarded on a WhatsApp group 'DCW Media' by Bhupender Singh. It was alleged that this notice was sent to a news channel where the name of the victim was disclosed on a programme.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal, Rouse Avenue Courts in her order said that the prosecution had "failed to prove the commission of offence u/s 74 JJ Act", read with Rule 86 of JJ Rules by the accused persons "beyond reasonable doubt".

It noted that neither the sending of notice revealing the identity of minor victim on WhatsApp by Singh nor sharing copy of notice with news channel had been proved.

"In view thereof, this Court holds the accused persons not guilty of commission of said offence. Accused persons namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind & Bhupender Singh are hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 74 r/w Rule 86 of Juvenile Justice Act," the court said.

Perusing the testimonies of witnesses the Court said:

'In the present case, as discussed above, a careful perusal of testimony of witnesses shows complete failure on the part of prosecution/complainant to prove the sending of WhatsApp messages by accused No.2. Thus, admission made by him in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., if any, cannot discharge the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution". 

The Court also said that there is "nothing in the entire charge-sheet to suggest that the notice, if at all" was sent to the news channel by the accused persons.

The court noted the complainant–CW1' testimony and observed "Thus, it can be clearly seen that he has not named the accused persons as the one responsible for sending the letter/notice, if any" to the news channel. 

The order notes that the footage of the programme was played and seen by the court. The court thereafter said that the "the notice issued by DCW mentioning the name of the minor victim is not visible in the entire footage". 

It further said that the anchor of the programme did not disclose the minor victim's name in the entire programme.

"Thus, the allegations of the prosecution to this extent appears to be baseless and unfounded," the court added. 

The prosecution also alleged that Maliwal can be convicted on the basis of the notice sent by her to concerned SHO in which the name of the minor victim was revealed. On this the court said,

"The said fact has certainly not been disputed by the accused No.1. However, the question is whether the accused No.1 can be held liable for the offence punishable u/s 74 JJ Act on the basis of the same. A careful perusal of Section 74 JJ Act shows that it prohibits any report in any newspaper, magazine, news sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any enquiry or investigation or judicial procedure from disclosing the name, address or school or any other particular which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of caring and protection or a child victim or a witness of crime involved in such matter"

The court observed that the prohibition is on the publication of the name or other particulars of the child victim on any such platform which is accessible to general public.

The court looked at the intention of Section 74 JJ Act and said:

"The prime aim and object of Section 74 of the Act of 2015 is to avoid scrutiny of the proceedings in which a juvenile is tried to insulate and protect the juvenile from stigma and emotional trauma". 

It said that Maliwal sending a notice to the SHO seeking explanation on the "lapses in the investigation" is not a report in any newspaper, magazine, news sheet or audio-visual media or other form of communication.

It said that the term 'other form of communication' has to be interpreted keeping in mind the meaning of the words preceding it.

"The general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them, and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as those words. The ejusdem generis rule is not a rule of law but is merely a rule of construction to aid the Courts to find out the true intention of the legislature," the court added.

The court said that Maliwal's act falls beyond the purview of Section 74 JJ Act. 

"Even otherwise, it does not appeal to common sense to hold accused no. 1 criminally liable for disclosing the name of minor victim to SHO...who otherwise is in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the charge-sheet in FIR...," the court said adding that sending of notice was not an offence under JJ Act. 

Case title: State v/s Swati Maliwal and Another

CR Case No.09/2025