The Supreme Court reiterates that the identity of a POCSO victim cannot be disclosed.

The Supreme Court while denying anticipatory bail to an accused objected to the name of the victim being published. The Supreme Court took a strict view of the matter and observed that:

 Mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the I.P.C. have not been followed in this case in as much as while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr. PC, her name is mentioned, and has not been masked as per law laid down in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703.

The relevant extracts of which are quoted herein below: - “Neither IPC or Cr. PC defines the phrase “identity of any person”. Section 228-A IPC clearly prohibits the printing or publishing “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the person”. It is obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of such a victim. We are clearly of the view that the phrase “matter which may make known the identity of the person” does not solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be disclosed but it also means that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media. 

The entire purpose of POCSO is to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure. This disclosure can only be made if it is in the interest of the child and not otherwise. One such case where disclosure of the identity of the child may be necessary can be where a child is found who has been subjected to a sexual offence and the identity of the child cannot be established even by the investigating team. In such a case, the investigating officer or the Special Court may allow the photograph of the child to be published to establish the identity. 

It is absolutely clear that the disclosure of the identity can be permitted by the Special Court only when the same is in the interest of the child and in no other circumstances. We are of the view that the disclosure of the name of the child to make the child a symbol of protest cannot normally be treated to be in the interest of the child.”

Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.