- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2016

Sangita w/o Yeshwant Tanpure

age 40 years, occ. Household

r/o Bhawana Rushi Housing Society

Shivajinagar, Nagar-Kalyan Road,

Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar

Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through its Chief Secretary

Mantralaya Mumbai 32.

2.

The Secretary,

Home Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

3.

The Secretary,

Law and Judiciary Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

4.

The Secretary,

Women and Child Welfare

Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai.

5.

The Secretary

Social Justice and Special

Assist Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

6.

The Chief Director

of Police, Maharashtra State

Mumbai 35.

7.

The Collector,

Collectorate, Ahmednagar.

- 2 -

8.

The Superintendent of Police

Ahmednagar.

9.

The District Women and

Child Development Offcer,

Ahmednagar.

Respondents

Mr. A.D. Ostwal, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.

Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for all respondents.

CORAM : T.V. Nalawade &

M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 7^th December, 2020.

PRONOUNCED ON : 19^th January, 2021.

JUDGMENT : ( PER M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal at

admission stage.

3.

This Public Interest Litigation is fled by the petitioner

seeking direction to the Print and Electronic Media that the name or

identity of the rape victim should not be disclosed.

4.

Facts leading to this Public Interest Litigation are that

the petitioner is the real mother of the victim. First Information

Report No. I-336/2010 was registered with Tofkhana Police Station,

- 3 -

District Ahmednagar, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian

Penal Code and after arrest of the accused, Section 376 was added. It

is however, alleged that despite having made the provisions under

Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and despite having the

directions been issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case

of Nipun Saxena and another Vs. Union of India and others reported

in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703, the Print and Electronic Media

are publishing the details of the crime in such a manner that the

identity of the victim is invariably disclosed. The petitioner has

alleged that in this case also the local newspapers of Ahmednagar

district i.e. Daily Sarvamat dated 23.02.2011 and 06.07.2015

highlighted the news in such a manner that the identity of her

daughter was disclosed. Similarly, in Daily Punyanagari, Daily Sakal,

Daily Divya Marathi and other newspapers the identity of the victim

(not related to the victim i.e. daughter of the petitioner), is disclosed.

The petitioner has alleged that because of the offence of rape, the

victim suffers physical and mental trauma and publication of the

news thereby disclosing the identity of the victim, causes severe

mental agony to the victim. The petitioner had made several

representations to fnd out whether there are any guidelines and

whether any training is imparted to the media in this regard. She

- 4 -

has further sought directions to the media not to disclose the details

revealing the identity of the victim in the case of rape.

5.

Learned counsel Shri A.D. Ostwal was appointed as

amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter. He argued that the

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena (supra) has

issued various guidelines. Guidelines in this regard are also issued

by the Delhi High Court. Kolkata High Court has also issued

directions in the case of Bijoy @ Guddu Das Vs. State of West Bengal

reported in (2017) 2 Cal LJ 224. These guidelines indicate that in no

case name of the victim should either be disclosed nor the details

revealing her identity shall be published. He argued that despite

these directions, the Print Media and the Electronic Media give the

details of the crime, relation of accused with the victim,