The matter concerns an order passed by a trial court in Kattakkada, Kerala by which a judicial magistrate declined to cancel the bail granted to a rape accused.

In the same order, the magistrate also revealed the name of the rape survivor.

The rape survivor then sought action against the judicial officer for revealing her name despite the legal requirement to keep the identity of rape survivors confidential. To this end, she filed a plea before the High Court seeking action against the judicial magistrate.

A single judge of the High Court declined to order any such action, although orders were passed for the immediate anonymisation of all case records to protect the rape survivor's identity.

The single-judge ruled that Section 228A of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises the act of revealing the identity of victims of certain offences like rape, applies only to those who print or publish the identity of a victim. This provision does not cover situations where a court, during the course of its proceedings, inadvertently reveals such information, the single judge held.

That judgment also highlighted the protection granted to judges under the Judges (Protection) Act, while emphasizing that the magistrate was acting in the discharge of judicial duties.

The single-judge further urged judges and judicial officers to be conscious of the imperative need to maintain the anonymity of sexual offence victims, and suggested proactive measures to anonymize details in cases involving such victims.

This single judge decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in January this year, which was then challenged by the survivor before the Supreme Court.

Advocate MT George appeared for the survivor before the top court, and argued that the magistrate may have had ulterior motives for his actions.

However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal and confirmed the Kerala High Court's decision in the matter.

#TataMistry Suit ‘not maintainable’, waiver arguments to be heard tomorrow