LI Network
Published on: October 29, 2023 at 16:12 IST
The Meghalaya High Court has clarified that Section 23 of the POCSO Act applies not only to publishers and owners of media outlets but also to reporters or contributors of news.
Justice B. Bhattacharjee emphasized that the legislature’s intention behind this provision is to prevent the disclosure of a child’s identity, directly or indirectly.
Section 23 of the POCSO Act strictly prohibits the disclosure of a child’s identity in any manner, with the goal of safeguarding the child’s privacy and reputation. Violation of this provision can lead to prosecution under Section 23(4) of the Act.
The court addressed this matter while hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the arraignment of three individuals in a case involving the disclosure of a child victim’s identity, which contravened the Act.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint by child rights activist Miguel Queah, who alleged that certain newspapers had violated the confidentiality of a child victim of abuse. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against three individuals. The petitioners were later arraigned as co-accused based on an application under Section 319 CrPC.
Challenging their arraignment, the petitioners argued that, as they were neither publishers nor owners of the newspapers but merely individuals who shared information about the incident, they could not be held liable under Section 23(3) of the POCSO Act. They contended that their actions did not constitute an offense as per the Act’s provisions.
In response, the State argued that Section 23 of the POCSO Act applies broadly to anyone involved in the disclosure of a child victim’s identity, including reporters or contributors of news. The prosecution emphasized that the Act specifically prohibits any form of media from revealing the identity of a child, and contravention of this provision would lead to criminal liability.
Court’s Observations:
After scrutinizing the provisions of Section 23 of the POCSO Act and related legal precedents, the court stressed that the Act’s intention was to protect the identity, privacy, and reputation of the child victim. It clarified that the law does not limit its application to publishers and owners of media outlets alone; reporters or contributors of news are equally liable for violating the Act.
Referring to the case of Gambhirsinh R Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Anr 2013, the bench highlighted that any person, regardless of their role, must not disclose the identity of a child victim.
The bench ruled that the petitioners do not enjoy immunity from prosecution under the law in the event of a violation of Section 23 of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Shri Eric Ranee & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr.
