SC directs payment of Rs. 10 lakh compensation to rape victims; Pulls up Madhya Pradesh government for disclosing names of victims

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Madhya Pradesh (MP) government to pay Rs. 10 lakh each as compensation to two girls who were gang raped in Betma village in Indore district. In doing so, the Court modified the decision of the MP High Court which had ordered Rs. 2 lakh to be paid to the victims. The Court also came down upon the MP government for disclosing the names of the victims in an affidavit filed by the government..The order was a passed by a Division Bench of Justices RM Lodha and Madan B Lokur in a Special Leave Petition titled Satya Pal Anand v. State of MP [SLP (Crl) 5019/2012]..Petitioner Satya Pal Anand, appearing in person, submitted that the compensation amount of Rs. 2 lakh was simply too low and inadequate. He prayed that a larger sum be awarded as compensation considering the fact that the victims were from poor families..The Court after hearing the petitioner and the counsel for the MP government, fixed an amount of Rs. 10 lakh and ordered for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to each of the victims. The Court also observed that,.“[T]he post traumatic stress to such a victim cannot be compensated by any amount. No amount of money can restore the dignity and confidence of a rape victim. However, certain measure like adequate compensation, insurance, employment and social security scheme may help in rehabilitating the rape victim to some extent.”.Taking a stern view of the fact that the names of the rape victims were disclosed in an affidavit submitted on July 30, 2013 by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Indore, the Court issued a notice to the police officer to.“..show cause why an offence under Section 228A [of the IPC] be not registered against him for disclosing the identity of the rape victims.”.The Court, however, declined to consider the larger issue of framing of a uniform social security scheme for rape victims on the ground that the issue was already pending before another Bench of the Supreme Court. The matter will now be listed after 6 weeks..The issue of identity disclosure of rape victims has been a matter of grave concern and the ambiguity in the law envisaged in Section 228A of the IPC coupled with the obvious negligence of the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, has on numerous occasions defeated the object of the provision..Section 228A prohibits the disclosure of identity of victims of certain offences including rape. Certain exemptions have been culled out to the said prohibition in order to facilitate investigation into the offence. The provision also exempts printing or publication of a judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court. However, the important issue of whether Judges can make such disclosure in their orders or judgment has been left unaddressed by Section 228A with the result that judges, including those in the Apex Court, often end up disclosing the names of the victims in their judgments. Cases like Karthi@ Karthick v. State represented by Inspector of police, Tamil Nadu, and State of Rajasthan v. Munshi bear testimony to this fact..Since printing or publication of a judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court is expressly allowed by the provision, the prohibition under the provision does not serve its purpose in such cases where the victim’s name is disclosed in the judgment. As pointed out by Mariamma AK,.“[W]hen Judges of Supreme Court disclose the name of the rape victim in judgments, repeat the same time and again, [it] point[s] out the need to amend the section so as conceal the exposure of the victim’s identity. As far as the victims are concerned, whether the disclosure was at the hands of the media or by the Judge, the result is [the] same.”.In cases where the statute is ambiguous, the courts are expected to ensure that the purpose of the law is fulfilled through its meaningful interpretation. Failure to do so raises a question mark over the judicial wisdom to obliterate the grey areas of law.