The Madras High Court has ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Tamil Nadu to issue strict instructions to police officers that the identities of victims in sexual offence cases must not be revealed in any case document including first information reports (FIR).
Justice P Velmurugan passed the order on June 19 after finding that a rape survivor was named in the FIR registered by the police.
The Court warned that it would take suo motu contempt action against police officers if such lapses recur.
"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 pointed out that Indian law itself provides that the identity of rape victims cannot be revealed.
"Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly given directions that the identifications of the victims of rape and sexual offences should not be revealed in any form. But the Investigating Officers are not following neither the law nor the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the Court added.
The Court made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a man accused of rape and sexual harassment. The accused-petitioner had urged the Court to direct the police to file a chargesheet in this case in a time-bound manner.
On June 19, the Court recorded the police's statement that the investigation is complete and that the chargesheet has been filed.
In view of this, the Court closed the petition.
However, it also ordered the police to immediately remove the name of the victim from the FIR and other statement or records where it may have been revealed.
Advocate Rahul Jagannathan represented the petitioner.
Government Advocate (criminal side) Dr. CE Pratap represented the State.
[Read Judgment]