SC counsels media restraint in reporting rapes

Preeti Bhardwaj

Besides proliferation in crime against women and children, and the demand for their safety, the Supreme Court recently focused on as to how and in what manner the identity of the victims of rape and sexual abuse (both adults and children) should be protected so that they are not subjected to ridicule, social ostracisation and harassment. 

In the Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India case on December 11, the court addressed the insensitivity and callousness with which victims are handled by the police, media and lower courts during the trial. It said, “If the victim is strong enough to deal with recriminations and insinuations made against her by the police, she normally does not find much succour even in court”. 

A two-decade-old judgment in Gurmit Singh (1996) case was reminiscence of the Supreme Court admonishing the lower court for its cascading role, dyed with insensitivity, in “casting unjustified stigmas on the rape victim, resulting in miscarriage of justice”.

The Supreme Court reiterated it while observing that “in court, the victim is subjected to a harsh cross-examination wherein a lot of questions are raised about her morals and character. The presiding judges sometimes sit like mute spectators and normally do not prevent the defence from asking such defamatory and unnecessary questions”. While restraining from clipping the right of defence to cross-examine the prosecutrix, the court upheld that such right should be exercised with a certain level of decency and respect to all women. 

On the role of media, the court included all types of media — press, electronic and social — under its preview. Since the infamous gang-rape in Haryana in September, questions have been raised about inaction against media houses for flouting the law as “everything has been said” about the 19-year-old victim being a state topper, although news reports did not reveal her name. The court observed that “it would not require rocket science to find out and establish her identity”. It issued strictures in form of not to “sensationalise” incidents of sexual assault, and report responsibly. It issued notices to media councils, associations and authorities, seeking their positive assistance in preventing the disclosure of the identity of victims and an affirmative role in drawing conclusions while pronouncing that “there cannot be a blanket ban on media reporting”. 

The Haryana State Commission for Women has recommended to the authorities concerned that “the identity of the victim was naturally disclosed when the whole nation saw and listened to reports talking about her academic excellence in the state and a rare honour accorded to her by the President of India. This commission strongly recommends action be initiated against those who aided in disclosing her identity”.

This judgment comes forth as an appeal for self-restraint or self-regulation by the media in cases of sex crime. It has also reinstructed the lower judiciary to be sensitive towards trials in such cases. 

(The writer is Vice-Chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women)