Delhi HC Orders Removal of Assault Complainant's Name from Online Orders
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of a sexual assault complainant's name and personal details from old court orders published online, ruling that statutory identity protection applies even if the accused was not ultimately put on trial for rape.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued the order on October 29 while hearing a plea moved by the woman, who submitted that her personal identity had been compromised through court records publicly accessible on official judicial portals and legal websites.
The case stems from a criminal complaint filed by the woman in 2007, in which she accused certain individuals of assault, rape, and criminal intimidation. In 2011, a Magistrate declined to proceed with the rape charge and ordered the trial to continue solely on assault charges. The woman contested this ruling, but her plea was turned down by a Sessions Court in 2013, and the Delhi High Court subsequently dismissed her challenge in 2016.
The complainant later returned to the High Court seeking the deletion and masking of her name, father's name, and residential address from all three judicial orders. She pointed out that any individual could locate her personal details through a routine internet search of her name. She also submitted that the accused persons had circulated copies of the court orders among her neighbours, which led to taunts, physical violence, and social isolation.
Allowing the petition, Justice Mahajan held that the law safeguards the identity of anyone against whom a sexual offence is alleged. He emphasized that the woman was not an accused person seeking a right to be forgotten, but a victim and complainant in an alleged sexual offence.
The court observed that Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, now incorporated as Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, prohibits disclosing the identity of any individual against whom such an offence is alleged or found to have been committed.
Justice Mahajan stated that the protection attaches to the allegation itself, making it immaterial that the accused were not ultimately summoned to face trial under Section 376 of the IPC. The court concluded that no public interest was served by revealing the woman's name, parentage, and address, noting that such disclosures cause the exact victimisation that legal protections exist to prevent.
