Introduction:

On April 11, 2025, the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sindhu S. and Others v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC 9008 of 2024), where the Court quashed a POCSO case registered against journalists and staff from Asianet News. The case had accused them of conspiring to disclose the identity of a minor rape survivor to increase television ratings (TRP) for their news channel. The prosecution alleged that the journalists conspired to air a program featuring the survivor, despite her refusal to participate, and used a doctored voice to conceal her identity. The petitioners, however, defended their actions, arguing that they intended to raise awareness about the growing drug abuse problem in Kerala. The Court ultimately found no intent to harm the survivor’s reputation or violate her privacy, emphasizing that the channel had taken measures to protect her identity.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners, namely Sindhu S. (Executive Editor), Shajahan P. (investigative program maker), Noufal V. (Bureau Chief), and other Asianet staff, argued that their investigative feature was aimed at addressing the rise of drug abuse among youngsters in Kerala. They emphasized that they had no intention of harming the minor rape survivor’s reputation or violating her privacy. The petitioners pointed out that the survivor’s face and voice were doctored, and multiple disclaimers were provided during the broadcast to ensure the viewer understood that the survivor’s identity was protected. The interviews with the survivor were carefully blurred, and her voice was altered. The defense further asserted that the program was aimed at highlighting a pressing social issue and that the survivor’s privacy was safeguarded throughout the broadcast. Therefore, they argued that none of the alleged offences were made out based on the facts of the case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution contended that the journalists had deliberately conspired to disclose the identity of the minor rape survivor to increase the channel’s TRP. It was alleged that the channel had attempted to get an interview with the survivor’s father, but when he refused, they used the voice of the survivor anyway. The prosecution claimed that the journalists had made a false narrative by showing the voice of the survivor in the program, which could have exposed her identity. The case included allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including criminal conspiracy (120B), forgery (465), cheating (419), and abetment (109), along with provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Specifically, Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act prohibits the disclosure of a minor’s identity, and it was argued that the channel violated this provision by airing the program.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, after examining the facts and evidence, concluded that no offence under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act had been committed. The Court relied heavily on the statement of the survivor, who confirmed that her voice had been doctored and was not used in its original form. The survivor herself stated that her voice was altered with “sentences jumbled,” indicating that the voice was “messed up, disarranged, and disorganized” rather than used in its natural state. The Court found that the channel had taken steps to ensure the survivor’s identity was protected, and therefore, no violation of her privacy occurred. The survivor’s voice was not used in a manner that could lead to the disclosure of her identity, and the Court noted that the original video recorded on August 9, 2022, was different from the disputed video aired by the channel.

In addition, the Court highlighted the positive social objective of the program, which aimed to alert the public about the alarming rise in drug abuse among the youth in Kerala. The Court observed that the video provided valuable insight into the presence of drugs in places close to police stations and excise offices, a concern that deserved attention. The Court thus praised the channel’s effort in bringing this issue to light, despite the controversy surrounding the broadcast.

Regarding the charge of forgery, the Court observed that for the offence to be made out, there must be a false document or electronic record created with the intent to cause harm or damage. The Court held that there was no intent to harm the public or the survivor; rather, the program was created with a bona fide intention to raise awareness about the drug abuse problem. Since the channel had used a doctored voice to conceal the survivor’s identity, the Court quashed the charges of forgery, cheating, and abetment under the IPC (Sections 471, 419, and 109).

As for the charge under Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the Court held that this provision applies when a child is used for illegal activities. In this case, the daughter of the fourth accused was shown in place of the rape survivor, and her identity was not disclosed. The Court found that the use of the daughter in the program did not constitute an offence under this provision. The Court emphasized that the survivor’s identity was not revealed, and thus, the provisions of the JJ Act did not apply in this case.

The Court concluded that the alleged offences were not made out based on the facts and evidence presented. It further cautioned media channels against airing sensational content without verifying the truth or allowing the other side to be heard. While the Court appreciated the intent behind the program, it stressed the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals, especially minors, in media coverage.