Disclosure Of Identity: A Flagrant Violation Of Right To Privacy And Dignity

In Balasore (Odisha), a 20-year-old student set herself on fire on campus after her repeated complaints of harassment were ignored. She died unheard. But in her death, her identity has surfaced across newspapers and social media, which is equally distressing if not more. The revelation of her identity has not just violated law but the last shred of dignity. However, this not a one-off incident, where the identity has been revealed. Similar instances have taken place in RG Kar case, Anna University Case or the Kathua rape case.

At this juncture, it is essential for us to reflect on what such disclosures reveal about public consciousness, media ethics, and the institutional commitment to safeguarding an individual's dignity.

The Law on protection of identity

The law on protecting the identity of victim of sexual violence is crystal clear i.e., it prohibits revealing such identities. Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prohibits the publication or disclosure of the identity of victims in cases involving sexual offences. Similar protection has been given in special legislation for example the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (POSH), 2013 also impose strict restrictions on revealing the identity of victim. The intent behind introducing such restrictions is to recognise the trauma that the victim would endure if identity is revealed. These restrictions are also entrenched with preservation of privacy, dignity and prevention from further victimisation and for ensuring fair trial.

In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised a harsh truth of societal response to sexual violence. It was noted by the Court that victims often endure more hardship than the preparator himself. It was further noted that this often results in undue stigma for the victim and her family. In response, the Court directed that the identity of the victim must remain protected at every stage. It prohibited any publication whether by press or social media that could reveal her name or lead to her identification. Even during investigation and trial, all related documents are to be sealed and the names to be redacted.

However, beyond the fear of victimisation and sensationalism, there lies something more intimate - the right to privacy and dignity. The right to not be known, to carry one's pain without turning it into spectacle. The right to independently chose appropriate legal recourse. About the right to remain unnamed in a world that is too eager to name, too quick to forget what names cost.

The exception to such restriction rests solely with the victim or, in the event of her death, with her family. Section 72 recognises that the right to disclose identity is contingent upon their informed consent. Yet, when identity is revealed for the sake of sensationalism, the consent is set aside.

Right to privacy and dignity

In its 2017 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised that privacy is a part of the right to life. It becomes quintessential for survivors of sexual violence. Exposing their names or details only reopen their trauma and strips away their dignity. Safeguarding the privacy of victims gives them the necessary space to heal and rebuild their lives. It is equally important for the well-being of their family members.

The idea of privacy is also intrinsically connected with human dignity. In Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised that dignity is not an abstract idea. But it is a recognition of what makes us human. Taking inspiration from Ronald Dworkin, the Court recognised that the sanctity of life is not confined to mere survival. Instead, it is entrenched in values that give life its worth and meaning. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases of sexual violence, where the very assault seeks to strip a person of this inherent dignity. However, the harm does not end there. When the law is not strictly followed and a victim's identity appears in newspapers or circulates on social media, we indulge in victimisation, whether knowingly or unknowingly. The victim is forced to relive trauma, in the shadow of unsolicited public scrutiny and moral judgment.

In the present context, it becomes even more peculiar, where victim-blaming is not an exception but a pattern. To name is, in effect, to shame. The same goes even for a victim who is dead. The Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena, recognised that even the victims who are dead have the right to dignity and their identity shall not be disclosed. In a similar manner, the Calcutta High Court has also held that the right to privacy extend beyond life i.e., it continues even if a person is dead.

Sadly, in the Balasore episode, there was flagrant violation of law and disclosure of identity from all possible stakeholders. However, the Courts have time and again taken serious note of such instances. After, media houses disclosed the identity of the victim in Kathua rape case, the Delhi High Court took serious note of it. The Court observed that the manner in which such reportage was made is in absolute disregard of the provisions of law and the privacy of victim. Consequently, the concerned media houses were directed to heavy fines. Even in RG Kar Medical case, the Supreme Court ordered the removal of name, photos and videos clips of the Kolkata rape-murder victim form all social media platforms. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, thereafter, asked all the social media handles to follow the directives passed by the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena. However, the responsibility is not the Court's alone. As a society, we have a shared responsibility to stay informed of the rights of the victim and recognise that sensationalism will serve no purpose. What matters is mitigating the pain of the victim and their family. If we fail to do this, we jeopardise the cause of justice.

Dr. Anindita Pujari, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Shaileshwar Yadav, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Views Are Personal.