Kerala High Court upholds decision refusing action against Magistrate for revealing identity of rape survivor in order

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday upheld the order of a single-judge that dismissed the request for legal action against a Magistrate who had inadvertently revealed the name of a rape survivor in his order..A division bench of Chief Justice AJ Desai and Justice VG Arun said it was in agreement with the single-judge's order, noting that it had directed the immediate anonymization of records to protect the survivor's identity..The High Court was considering an appeal filed by a survivor in a rape case.The survivor had approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakkada to cancel the bail granted to accused Saiju AV. The Magistrate passed an order refusing to cancel the bail and also revealed the identity of the victim.Subsequently, the victim moved the High Court seeking action against the Magistrate arguing that the same amounted to a violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena & Anr. v Union of India & Ors. which laid down guidelines to protect the identities of victims of rape..The petition was disposed of by single-judge Justice Devan Ramachandran, directing immediate anonymization of records to protect rape survivor's identity but dismissed request for legal action against the Magistrate.The single-judge ruled that Section 228A of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises revealing the identity of victims of certain offences like rape, applies only to those who print or publish the identity of a victim and does not cover situations where a court, during the course of its proceedings, inadvertently reveals such information.The judgment highlighted the plenary protection granted to judges under the Judges (Protection) Act, emphasizing that the Magistrate was acting in discharge of judicial duties.The single-judge urged judges and judicial officers to be conscious of the imperative need to maintain the anonymity of sexual offence victims, suggesting proactive measures to anonymize details in cases involving such victims..The rape survivor then filed the present appeal against the order of the single-judge. .The crux of the survivor's arguments lay in the claim that the accused, a Circle Inspector of Police, had undue influence over the magistrate.She asserted that the two were frequently in contact and that the police officer was even seen leaving the magistrate's chamber on multiple occasions. The petitioner acknowledged that there are professional interactions between jurisdictional police officers and magistrates but contended that, in this case, it went beyond official duties.The appellant-survivor accused the magistrate of intentionally publishing personal details, including her name, address, and other specifics without masking them in the court order. She alleged that this disclosure was done with malicious intent, driven by vengeance shown by the accused police officer. It was also argued that due to the influence of the accused, the magistrate issued the order, leading to the appellant facing embarrassing situations in public places. Passers-by reportedly made disparaging remarks, and the appellant felt compelled to confine herself to her house, avoiding public spaces.The appellant, a dental doctor, claimed that the cumulative effect of this act had not only ruined her career but also halted her practice..However, expressing its agreement with the single-judge's decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal. .The appellant was represented by advocates V Sethunath, Lakshminarayan R, Sreeganesh U, Thomas Abraham and VR Manoranjan (Muvattupuzha).