SC flags repeated breaches of law on disclosure of sexual assault survivors’ identity

The Supreme Court of India has warned of a “general indifference” among trial courts and the police towards what is statutorily a criminal offence, the public disclosure of the identity of survivors of sexual assault.

The court was compelled to intervene twice this week to remind law enforcement authorities and the judiciary that case records, affidavits, orders and judgments must not mention the personal details of survivors.

On Wednesday (March 25, 2026) a three judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the Supreme Court Registry to erase or redact the name of the 3.8-year-old rape survivor, her parents and other identity marks from documents, including school records, annexed by the Gurugram Police Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police with their affidavits.

On Tuesday (March 24, 2026) another Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Sanjay Karol found the nonchalant disclosure of the identity of a nine year old survivor in a rape case from Himachal Pradesh a “disturbing fact”.

The court wondered if these were signs of a systemic lowering of the guard mandated by Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, currently Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The provision makes disclosure of victims’ identity a criminal offence punishable with up to two years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Section 228A was the first step in a series of amendments made in 1983 towards a victim centric orientation in criminal law, which included in camera trials and anonymity. These reforms were designed to reduce the barriers and fears that previously discouraged survivors from reporting crimes and stifled effective prosecution of sexual offences.

“Before 1983, there was no statutory bar on publishing the name or particulars of a woman against whom a sexual offence was alleged. Court reporting and media coverage could expose survivors to social stigma, ostracism, and lifelong reputational harm,” Justice Karol noted.

The 1983 reforms were triggered by the public outrage following the handling of the infamous Mathura custodial rape case. Two policemen were accused of the rape of a teenage tribal girl in a police station in Maharashtra in 1972. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 1979, deducing that a lack of injuries on the survivor amounted to “passive submission”. Her name and details were widely circulated in case records and media reports. In 2025, then Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai called the 1979 judgment “a moment of institutional embarrassment”.

Justice Karol referred to the Mathura rape case against the backdrop of the clear disregard shown to Section 228A safeguards in the Himachal Pradesh case. “The name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record,” the judgment said.

The Bench indicated that this was not a one off case. “In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed,” Justice Karol observed.

The top court said identity disclosures were in clear violation of a 2018 judgment in Nipun Saxena vs Union of India, which had portrayed the trauma suffered by survivors not only at the hands of the police but also in courtrooms when they had to face defamatory questions from defence lawyers while presiding judges sat like “mute spectators”.

The Nipun Saxena judgment had found that society treated survivors worse than the perpetrators of the crime. “The victim is innocent. She has been subjected to forcible sexual abuse. However, for no fault of the victim, society instead of empathising with the victim, starts treating her as an untouchable,” the top court had said.

It had declared an absolute bar on publication in “print, electronic, social media, etc, the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large”.

Justice Karol’s Bench directed the March 24 judgment to be sent to the Registrar Generals of State High Courts to ensure that the mandate of non disclosure was strictly complied with even in pending sexual offence cases which preceded the Nipun Saxena verdict.