Sooryanelli Rape: Kerala High Court stays adverse observation against ex-DGP for revealing details of survivor

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has stayed certain observations made by a single judge against a former Director General of Police (DGP) Siby Mathews for allegedly disclosing the identity of the survivor in the Sooryanelli rape case in his book, Nirbhayam [Siby Mathews v. KK Joshwa & Ors.]..In a judgment dated June 6, the single judge had observed that although Mathews did not name the rape survivor, the details revealed in the book (including the names of the survivor's parents, the school she studied in, etc.) were sufficient to identify her.As such, the single-judge opined that it may be necessary to register a case against Mathews under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prohibits publishing information that could reveal the identity of a rape victim.The single judge proceeded to direct the police to consider the issue and register a first information report (FIR) in line with the Supreme Court’s directives in the 2013 judgment of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Others.Mathews subsequently moved an appeal against this judgment before a Division Bench of the High Court which granted him interim relief on June 21..In the June 21 order, a Bench of Chief Justice AJ Desai and Justice VG Arun noted that the observations of the single judge would effectively leave the police no choice except to proceed against Mathews. It, therefore, stayed the single-judge's observation that a prima facie case was made out against Mathews."The observations made by the learned Single Judge recording that there is a prima facie case, in our opinion, is required to be stayed, since there would be no alternative for the investigating agency to proceed further, in accordance with law, in connection with the FIR registered in this case. Hence, till the next date of hearing, there would be a stay (on the single-judge order to quash a police commissioner's decision not to proceed against Mathews)," the Division Bench said..The single judge's ruling was passed on a petition moved by one KK Joshwa who had previously submitted representations to the police alleging that Mathews had revealed the identity of the survivor.Dissatisfied with the police's inaction, he approached the High Court in 2019. At the time, the High Court had directed the authorities to consider his complaints.However, the Commissioner of Police, after a preliminary enquiry, informed Joshwa that no further action would be taken, prompting Joshua to approach the High Court once again.On June 6, the single judge allowed Joshwa's petition and quashed the Commissioner's response. The single judge directed the police to consider Joshwa's representation and to register an FIR as per the Lalitha Kumari guidelines if any cognisable offence is found.Mathews challenged the single-judge ruling, asserting that it was wrong in law and unsustainable.In his appeal, Mathews contended that neither the survivor nor her parents had any issues with the publication of the book. Mathews added that Joshwa, who cannot claim to be affected by the book, could not have approached the High Court in the matter. He also submitted that Joshwa was a police officer who was part of the team investigating the rape case and who had an axe to grind with him (Mathews).Further, Mathews argued that even if the allegations made out a cognisable offence, the singe judge should not have ordered the registration of an FIR. .When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench last week, it was submitted that an FIR has been registered after the single judge's ruling.The Division Bench has not quashed the FIR, but said that Mathews can challenge the same in accordance with law.The stay on the observation and directions of the single-judge will apply till the next date of hearing which is scheduled for August 12..Mathews is represented by advocate M Baiju Noel..[Read order]