Back
Restrains Against Ex-DGP Sreelekha in POCSO Victim Identity Disclosure Case
In a significant , the has directed the Investigating Officer to refrain from taking any against former Director General of Police (DGP) and Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Councillor Sreelekha R., who faces criminal charges for allegedly disclosing the identities of victims in sexual offence cases through her digital platforms.
Justice Jobin Sebastian
, presiding over the on , ordered:
"There will be a direction to the Investigating Officer to desist from taking any
against the petitioner/accused until the disposal of this Crl.M.C."
The matter has been posted to , for further consideration.
The Charges: Section 72 BNS and POCSO Act Provisions
Sreelekha R., a 65-year-old retired IPS officer, stands as the sole accused in Crime No. 205/2026 registered by the . The invokes — which penalises the disclosure of the identity of victims of certain offences — and , governing the procedure for media reporting.
According to the case records, a private complaint was preferred by R. Jayachandran , Secretary of the , before the . The complaint alleged that Sreelekha revealed the names of victims in three rape cases through her YouTube channel, 'Sasneham Sreelekha' , and her blog page.
The Trigger: A Magistrate's Order Without Notice
The Magistrate, acting under , forwarded the complaint to the Museum Police, leading to the registration of the . Critically, this order was passed without issuing prior notice to Sreelekha , a procedural gap that forms the cornerstone of her challenge before the High Court.
Sreelekha's legal team, led by along with Advocates , , and , has moved the High Court seeking to quash the . The , Jayachandran, has been and has already entered appearance through Advocates , , and their team.
The Defence: No POCSO Victims Named
In her petition, Sreelekha has mounted a two-pronged factual defence. First, she categorically contends that she has not revealed the names of any persons who were victims under the POCSO Act . Second, and significantly, the petition points out that one of the three cases in which she allegedly disclosed the victim's identity was not a POCSO case at all, but a murder case — thereby challenging the very applicability of the special statute invoked against her.
The petition also underscores the : the Magistrate's order under Section 175 BNSS, which set the criminal machinery in motion, was passed without affording her an opportunity of being heard, as mandated by law.
What the Means
Justice Jobin Sebastian's interim direction shields Sreelekha from arrest or any other coercive measures while the remains pending. The Court noted that the second respondent had already filed a (authorisation for legal representation), and posted the matter to , describing it as "last chance for hearing."
The order does not adjudicate the merits of the allegations. However, it signals that the High Court considers the matter — particularly the interplay between Section 175 BNSS proceedings and the procedural safeguards owed to an accused before an is registered — as warranting closer .
Broader Implications
This case sits at the intersection of victim confidentiality protections and the rights of content creators and public commentators on digital platforms. Section 23 of the POCSO Act imposes strict prohibitions on media disclosures that could identify child victims. Section 72 of the BNS extends similar protections to victims of sexual offences more broadly. The High Court's eventual ruling may clarify the contours of criminal liability for digital content creators discussing pending or concluded criminal cases, especially where the classification of the underlying offence is disputed.
