Sexual assault cases: Set up ‘one-stop centre’ for women in every district, HC tells Delhi govt

The court directed the Delhi government to lay down criteria to identify social welfare organisations where victims’ next of kin can authorise the organisation to declare the name of the victim who is either dead or of unsound mind under IPC Section 228-A(2)(c). The SC had directed that such an application should be made only to the sessions judge concerned until the government acts under Section 228-A(1)(c) and lays down criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare organisations.

When the court was informed that these two directions had not been implemented, the HC said, “It transpires that even though the decision in Nipun Saxena was rendered by the apex court on 11.12.2018, the directions contained in paragraphs 50.7 and 50.9 have yet not been complied with. We are, therefore, directing the GNCTD to act under IPC Section 228-A (3) and lay down the criteria as directed by the apex court. The State is also directed to set-up one-stop centres in every district in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Nivedita Jha v. State of Bihar, 2018. The state governments are already in contempt for not adhering to the time limit fixed by the apex court in setting up such centres within a year from the date of the judgment passed on 11.12.2018.”

Senior advocate Rebecca John, the Amicus Curiae, informed the HC that a similar issue regarding compensation to the victims and criminal action under IPC Section 228-A is pending before the Telangana High Court in a batch of pleas. “This court does not find it appropriate to initiate proceedings against media houses and reported individuals or to direct the investigating authorities to take cognizance of the offence,” the HC said disposing of the plea.

The HC discussed that though the general law proceedings are always conducted in an open court, inquiry or trial of certain offences pertaining to rape and sexual assault in the IPC are to be conducted in camera to protect the victim’s privacy. The HC in this regard took note of Nipun Saxena v UOI moved in the SC which sought directions to ensure that victims of rape and children who are victims of sexual abuse should be protected so that they are not subjected to unfortunate ridicule, social ostracisation and harassment.

The apex court had made clear, the HC noted, that authorities who know about the victim’s identity are duty-bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court. The apex court had also held that in-camera proceedings can only be attended by the presiding officer, the court staff, the accused, his counsel, the public prosecutor, the victim, if she wants to be present or the witness and said there can be no reporting of such cases. The SC categorically held that “press can report that the case was fixed before court and some witnesses were examined, it can also report as to for what purpose the case was listed but it cannot report what transpired inside the court or what was the statement of the victim or the witnesses,” the HC noted.

The HC was hearing a plea seeking directions to the respondents to prevent disclosure of the identity of the victim on online platforms, as well as the extent of blurring required in publishing pictures and to ensure awareness regarding their due compliance. It further sought action against erring officers who failed to take cognizance of these violations which took place in their presence and who indulged in supplying information to the media.