The Supreme Court has raised serious concern over the unauthorised publication of women complainants’ identities on public platforms and has directed the State of Rajasthan to initiate appropriate action under Section 72 BNS, the statutory safeguard that prohibits revealing the identity of victims of sexual offences.
The Court recorded that certain YouTube channels had circulated the names, photographs and even snippets of the court proceedings involving the allegations against petitioner Arpit Narainwal.
The issue surfaced during the hearing of three criminal matters where the complainants accused the petitioner of establishing physical relations with them under false promises of marriage, an offence addressed under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
This provision treats sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or false matrimonial assurances as a distinct offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend beyond ten years.
Related Articles
When the bench took up the case, the State submitted that key details of the women involved had been uploaded online without any legal authority.
The Court observed that Section 72 BNS provides a complete bar on such disclosures and that the victim or the State is entitled to take action against those responsible for breaching statutory confidentiality.
The bench clarified that the protective intent of the law cannot be diluted by digital broadcasting or sensational content creation.
Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, argued that the FIRs themselves were tainted with mala fides and suggested that the complainants had attempted to honey-trap the petitioner.
She submitted that two police investigations had already resulted in negative final reports under Section 173(2) CrPC, noting material inconsistencies and falsity in the allegations.
The proceedings also saw one complainant personally appear before the Court, alleging that the petitioner had issued threats and that even a local Station House Officer had intimidated her. The State assured the Court that appropriate protection measures would be issued without delay.
Earlier, the petitioner had been granted interim relief against coercive action, but the Supreme Court emphasised that such protection does not extend to allowing violation of the rights of the victims.
The bench reminded the State that digital circulation of sensitive victim-related information directly triggers consequences under Section 72 BNS, adding that mishandling identities in sexual-offence matters strikes at the heart of criminal justice.
Party Names:
- Petitioner: Arpit Narainwal
- Respondent No. 1: State of Rajasthan
- Respondent No. 2: One of the complainants (identity withheld)
- Other Complainants: Names withheld as per Section 72 BNS
Bench Details:
- Justice Aravind Kumar
- Justice N. V. Anjaria
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…