News Agencies Do Not Have Immunity From Prosecution U/s. 23 POCSO Act If They Reveal Particulars Which May Lead To Identification Of Child Victim: Meghalaya High Court
|The Meghalaya High Court held that a news agency or any person thereof, would be liable under Section 23 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) if they publish or reveal any information related to the child victim’s identity or certain facts which might reveal the identity of such victim.
The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition challenging the order of the Special Court issuing summons. The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act intends to safeguard the identity of a child from being disclosed either directly or indirectly and to secure the privacy of such a child.
Justice B. Bhattacharjee held, “Thus, it is clear that Section 23 of the Act extends to the publisher and owner of the media or studio or photographic facilities but not limited to them only. It is well settled that a provision of a statute should be interpreted to meet the purpose and purport it needs to serve. Therefore, the intention of Section 23 is very clear that the victim child shall not be exposed to any sort of publication by any person”.
“The intention of the legislature is that the identity of a child should not be disclosed directly or indirectly and the privacy and the reputation of the child should not be harmed. Any particular which may lead to the identification of a child cannot be disclosed in the media. Any person committing breach of the said requirement of law shall be prosecuted in terms of Section 23(4) of the said Act”, the Court noted.
Advocate T.L. Jyrwa appeared for the Petitioner and Senior General Advocate N.G. Shylla appeared for the Respondents.
A Child Activist filed a complaint to the Director General of Police (DGP) regarding the violation of the Right of Confidentiality of a child who was a victim of abuse. The complaint was directed towards two newspapers, namely "The Shillong Times" and "The Meghalaya Guardian". The matter was investigated and a chargesheet was filed against three individuals.
The prosecution applied Section 319 Cr.PC before the Special Court (POCSO) and summons were issued against the Petitioner and co-accused. The complainant was impleaded as the Second Respondent. However, the Respondents filed an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the impugned order was assailable under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by way of a regular revision application. The Petitioner along with the co-accused approached the Court by way of a Criminal Petition challenging the order of the Special Court.
The Court noted that Section 23 of the POCSO Act categorically prohibits any person from making any report or comment on a child without complete and authentic information. This includes any form of media, studio, or photographic facilities that may infringe upon the child's privacy or lower their reputation.
The Court observed, “A conjoin reading of all the sub-sections of Section 23 of the POCSO Act makes it unequivocally clear that a prohibition is made by which no person shall make any report or comment on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering his reputation or infringing upon his privacy. Further, no report in any media shall disclose the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child. The publisher or owner of the media or studio or photographic facilities shall be jointly and severally liable for the acts and omission of his employee. Any person who contravenes the provisions regulating procedure for media shall be liable for punishment”.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the provision also prohibits disclosing any information that may lead to the child's identity being revealed, such as their name, address, photograph, family details, school, or neighborhood. The Court further asserted that any person who violates the procedure for media regulation will be punished.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Shri Eric Ranee & 2 Ors. v State of Meghalaya & Anr (2023:MLHC:1061)