Will Inititate Suo Motu Contempt Against Police Dept If Identity Of Rape Victims Is Revealed: Madras High Court Tells DGP & Commissioner

Justice P Velmurugan asked the DGP and the Commissioner to give instructions to all investigating officers that in case of certain offences, the identity of the victim/child should not be revealed as enunciated under law and through the directions of the Supreme Court.

“Therefore, the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai are directed to give strict instructions to all the Investigating Officers that the offences under certain sections as enunciated under the law and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, especially, the sexual offences against children and women, the identification of the child/victim should not be revealed in any form and if any deviation is found, the entire police department would be held responsible and the Court will take stringent action by way of initiating suo motu contempt,” the court said.

The court noted that as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the indemnity of victims of rape and sexual offences should not be revealed in any form. The court however noted that some investigating officers were not following these directions nor the law which prohibited the same.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man, accused in a case registered for offences under Section 64 of the BNS [Punishment for Rape] read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women [Penalty for harassment of women]. He had sought directions to the police to file the chargesheet in the case within a stipulated time.

The Government Advocate informed the court that the investigation was already completed and the chargesheet was also filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

On perusing the documents, the court noted that the victim's name had been revealed in the FIR. This prompted the court to make the above observations. The court then directed the Inspector of Police to immediately remove the victim's name from the FIR and other statements/records, if any.

Since the chargesheet was already filed, the court disposed of the plea with the above directions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Jagannathan

Counsel for Respondents: Dr. C. E. Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 209

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.17682 of 2025