'Absolutely Irresponsible': Gujarat High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against Lawyer For Disclosing POCSO Victim's Name To Media

The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR against a woman advocate booked for disclosing the name of a POCSO victim by giving a media bite, stating that she behaved "absolutely irresponsibly as a professional as well as a human". 

Justice Nirzar Desai in his order further observed that what was more glaring is that the applicant could not protect the "dignity, reputation, and privacy of a minor victim of an offence under the POCSO Act", despite being a woman and, "prima facie appears to have placed her professional interests and publicity above and ahead the interest of the minor victim". 

It said:

"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 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". 

"Being an advocate, it was expected of the present applicant to be well versed with the legal provisions and the sections of the relevant Acts, and not to act absolutely irrationally or run after publicity by giving media bites on social media, that too by disclosing the name of the victim girl," the court added. 

Whether the act was done with a bona fide intention, with a malafide intention, with a view to commit an offence, or it was an inadvertent mistake is a subject matter of investigation or trial the court said.

It however observed that "a prima facie reading of the FIR" constitutes an offence. 

As per the facts stated in the order the applicant had given shelter to the POCSO victim. It was stated that the victim had lodged an FIR against the accused who subsequently committed suicide; after this another FIR was registered where the victim was shown as an accused and she was sent to an observation home. After she was released, subsequently she and her mother went to the applicant's home to stay with the latter. 

The father of the minor girl alleged that he came to know that the applicant had given a media bite to news channels disclosing the name of the victim, who happens to be his daughter. 

Not only that, it was alleged that the applicant had also asked the victim girl to give a media bite and recorded a video of her. An FIR was registered on the allegation that, although the applicant is an advocate and was aware that the victim girl was a minor under the POCSO Act, despite this she asked the victim to give a media bite on social media. 

The FIR was registered under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74(3) (prohibition on disclosure of identity of children)of Juvenile Justice Act. 

Section 23(4) states that any person who makes a report on any child which lowers their privacy or any media report which discloses identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

The applicant's counsel argued that it was the responsibility of media to blur the name of victim and the media has failed in performing their duty but looking to the nature of language of Section 23 of the POCSO Act which relates to responsibility of media only. For this an advocate cannot be held liable or responsible for an act of disclosing the name of victim of an offence against children.

The State argued that the  applicant, merely to extract publicity and media coverage, has disclosed the name of the victim girl and thereby acted in sheer irresponsible manner.

"Considering the above observations, as well as the fact that the registration of the FIR and a bare reading of the same prima facie disclose an offence, merely because the present applicant is an advocate, the investigation in respect of the offence in question cannot be stayed. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed," the court said.

The plea was dismissed.

Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat and Anr. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order