Bar on disclosing minor victims' identity in media applies to WhatsApp groups also: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently refused to quash charges against Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) Jamtara and minister Dr Irfan Ansari in a case accusing him of circulating the name, address and photograph of a minor rape victim to the media [Dr Irfan Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand]..The trial court in 2022 framed charges under Section 228-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 74(1) (3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 23 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against Ansari. These provisions prohibit the disclosure of the identity of minor sexual offence victims.Dealing with Ansari’s petition challenging the framing of charges, Justice Arun Kumar Rai said that the disclosure of a victim’s name or any facts which can lead to the victim being identified, in any form (print, electronic, social media, etc) is strictly prohibited and is an offence. .With regard to the charges under Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 74 (1)(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act - the provision that particularly bar the media from disclosing the details of child victims and children in conflict with law - the Court opined that WhatsApp news groups would come within the definition of 'media'.“As far as Section 23 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 74 (1) (3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are concerned, the ingredients of both the sections with the above stated facts and discussion, clearly shows that prima facie Whats App news group in the name of “Nala News” in which message regarding identity of victim and her photograph were sent, would come within the domain of “any form of media” & “audio-visual media”.”.The Court was told that in 2018, Ansari along with his supporters had visited a hospital where a four-year-old rape victim was admitted, to show sympathy with the child and her family. He had taken details and photographs of the victim and later circulated them with a press note regarding his visit.Interestingly, the police had only chargesheeted Ansari’s secretary, who had sent the messages from the MLA's phone. However, the trial court had taken cognizance against Ansari also.Ansari’s argument was that it was his secretary who was using the mobile phone via which the information had been disclosed. However, the prosecution said that since the mobile number belonged to him, a case was made out against him as well..After hearing arguments, the High Court said that a prima facie case was made out against Ansari under Section 228-A of IPC as it was admitted that reports and photographs of the victim were forwarded on social media platforms including a WhatsApp news group.It was noted that though Ansari’s secretary had accepted that he had sent the messages and photographs from the MLA’s number, “criminal liability cannot and should not be transferred at this stage and even for examining this aspect, for proper appreciation of fact, trial is required”.Thus, the Court refused to interfere with the charges framed against Ansari..Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Kumar Rahul Kamlesh represented the petitioner. Advocate PC Sinha represented the State..[Read Judgment]