ORAL ORDER

The grievance of the petitioners is non-consideration of the representations at Annexures-A to H. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are individuals and petitioner No.2 is Trust. The petitioners, concerning non-implementation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 2 SCC 703], have made representations at Annexures- A to H before the respondent-authorities. Their further grievance is regarding non-implementation of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019 at Annexure–M.

2. Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S.H. Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, Sri. Sharanjith Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8, 9, 11 to 16 and Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for R10.

3. Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the photographs and names of the victims in the criminal offences are displayed through flex/banners in the public places. It is submitted that such display is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra). Learned counsel would further submit that similar guidelines have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division, dated 16.01.2019. It is submitted that though several representations are made to the respondent-authorities, no action has been taken to prevent display of photograph/names of the victims or to remove flex/banners displaying the photographs and names of the victims. In conformity with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena's case (Supra), the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division has issued directions to all the State Governments for strict implementation of the guidelines. The non-compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions by the Government of India for strict compliance is a serious concern to be addressed by the respondent-authorities immediately.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that action has been taken in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena’s case (Supra). He further submits that the competent authorities responsible for implementation of the guidelines are being directed to take necessary steps.

He further submits that the grievances raised in the representations would be appropriately addressed within a reasonable time.

5. Though the petitioners have not raised any individual grievance, as the cause brought before this Court is non- implementation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena’s case (Supra), the present writ petition is entertained. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under, "50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large.

50.2. In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind the name of the victim or her identity should not be disclosed even under the authorization of the next of kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure of her identity exist, which shall be decided by the competent authority, which at present is the Sessions Judge.

50.3 FIRs relating to offences under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-D, 376-DB or 376-E IPC and the offences under POCSO shall not be put in the public domain.

50.4. In case a victim files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, it is not necessary for the victim to disclose his/her identity and the appeal shall be dealt with in the manner laid down by law.

50.5. The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim