Introduction:

In the case of Sakthivel Ganesan v. Inspector of Police [Crl.O.P.No.17682 of 2025], the Madras High Court issued a strong warning to the Tamil Nadu Police, particularly the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, that any instance of disclosing the identity of victims in cases involving sexual offences could lead to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the department. Justice P. Velmurugan, who heard the matter, observed with deep concern that despite the clear mandate of the Supreme Court and the statutory safeguards enshrined in Indian criminal jurisprudence, some investigating officers were still violating these norms by revealing victims’ names in First Information Reports (FIRs). The case arose from a criminal original petition filed by the accused, Sakthivel Ganesan, who was booked under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to the offence of rape, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking a direction to the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within a reasonable period.

Arguments:

The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Dr. C. E. Pratap, representing the State, informed the Court that the investigation had already been completed and that the final report had been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court in Egmore.

Judgement:

However, during the scrutiny of the case documents, the Court was startled to note that the FIR contained the victim’s full name. This discovery prompted the Court to address a far graver issue beyond the immediate relief sought by the petitioner. The Court reiterated that the disclosure of a rape victim’s identity, directly or indirectly, is expressly prohibited under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and has been time and again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in landmark decisions such as Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. Justice Velmurugan emphasized that the judiciary had always held the confidentiality of the identity of victims in sexual assault cases as sacrosanct and fundamental to ensuring their dignity, safety, and right to privacy. The court strongly condemned the casual attitude of investigating officers and directed both the DGP and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, to issue firm instructions to all investigating officers across the state that under no circumstance should the identity of victims—particularly children and women in sexual offence cases—be disclosed in any form, including in FIRs, statements under Section 161 CrPC, charge sheets, or any other public documents. The Court sternly warned that any deviation from these directives in the future would result in the entire police department being held liable for contempt, and the Court would not hesitate to initiate suo motu proceedings. In light of the lapse in the current case, the Court ordered the Inspector of Police to immediately remove or redact the victim’s name from the FIR and all associated records where her identity may have been disclosed. This directive aligns with the Court’s commitment to uphold victim-centric criminal jurisprudence and to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The Court also emphasized that the responsibility of safeguarding the victim’s identity does not rest solely on the prosecution or the judiciary but must be upheld by every functionary within the criminal justice system, including police officers at the ground level. After taking note of the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, the Court found that the prayer of the petitioner had become infructuous and therefore disposed of the petition, but with the strict warning and directive that any future violations of the law protecting victim identity would not be tolerated. The bench’s strong observations serve as a timely reminder of the importance of protecting the privacy and dignity of victims and ensuring that legal procedures are not just followed in form but in spirit. This ruling adds another judicial layer to the already existing legal and ethical obligation that mandates confidentiality in cases of sexual offences and highlights the judiciary’s zero-tolerance stance towards lapses by investigating agencies in this regard.