Gujarat High Court refuses to quash FIR against lawyer who revealed POCSO victim’s identity to media

The Gujarat High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against a lawyer for disclosing the identity of a minor victim during a media interview in a matter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Justice Nirzar S Desai took a strong exception to the lawyer’s conduct, observing that she had behaved irresponsibly as a professional as well as a human. 

In the order passed on September 8, the Court observed that she was expected to know the law inside out and not act “absolutely irrationally” or run after publicity by giving bites to the media.

“The present applicant, as it prima facie appears, has not only disclosed the name of the victim girl while giving a media bite on social media but also, when the victim girl was accompanying her, influenced the victim girl to give a media bite on social media. Therefore, a thorough investigation into the offence in question is required, as the provisions of the Act are intended to protect the privacy and modesty of a victim of an offence under the POCSO Act or the Juvenile Justice Act, as the case may be, and there is thus an inbuilt mechanism in the Act itself to protect the identity of the victim,” it said.

Whether the act was done with a bona fide intention or it was an inadvertent mistake, is a subject matter of investigation or trial as the stage may be, but a prima facie reading of the FIR constitutes an offence, as can be seen from the language of the FIR itself, the Court added.

The lawyer at Gondal and Rajkot has been in practice for about six years. In July 2025, she had come to represent a victim-girl after the girl was booked in the case of suicide of the person against whom she had made allegations under POCSO Act. 

The lawyer along with the minor victim and her mother had later given media bites in relation to the case. The lawyer was then booked under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Challenging the FIR, the lawyer’s counsel argued that the act was an inadvertent mistake and considering that she has been in practice only for six years, she may be pardoned. It was also argued that the offence in question can be treated as non-cognizable and consequently, the FIR ought not to have been registered.

However, the Court declined to grant any relief to the lawyer. 

“The question is not about pardoning the mistake of the present applicant. The question is, when a professional, merely to extract publicity, crosses the line drawn by law, whether such an act can be considered as an inadvertent mistake or not,” it said.

The Court also noted that the Investigating Officer had submitted  a report before the Special Court seeking permission to investigate the offence in question and that the judge had held that there was no requirement of seeking any permission from the magistrate before registering the case.

“I do not see any reason to show disagreement in respect of the said order, which is not even under challenge before this Court, and when the investigation has taken place pursuant to the aforesaid order, the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant that the registration of an FIR in respect of a non-cognizable offence cannot be considered at this stage, when the investigation is ongoing and the order dated 29-07-2025 has never been challenged till date,” the single-judge said.

Concluding that a prima facie case was made out, the Court opined that merely because the applicant is an advocate, the investigation in respect of the offence in question cannot be stayed.

Advocate Aftab Husen Ansari represented the accused lawyer.

Additional Public Prosecutor Ronak Raval represented the prosecution.

[Read Judgment]