Child rights and responsible media reporting in Nagaland
Moa Jamir
A child does not lose the right to privacy because a crime has occurred. Nor does the public interest in knowing what happened create a public interest in knowing who the child is. Yet this distinction is increasingly difficult to maintain.
This is particularly important in Nagaland, where close-knit communities can make ordinary details highly identifying. A locality, school, age, family relationship or other contextual detail may appear harmless in isolation but become revealing when combined with information already in circulation. Anonymity can therefore exist on paper while failing in practice.
The law recognises this risk. Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibit disclosure of particulars that may lead to identification. The Supreme Court's Nipun Saxena judgment reinforces that identity protection is not limited to withholding a child's name.
Nagaland has already seen a reminder of this obligation. A police advisory in June 2025 followed a Juvenile Justice Board complaint concerning the publication of a child's identity. The lesson is straightforward: “We did not publish the child's name” is not an adequate editorial defence if the information published can identify the child.
Recent reporting has also illustrated how cumulative disclosure can undermine anonymity. In one POCSO case, separate reports carried details about the locality, the accused and the minor's distinctive circumstances. Subsequent reporting said the victim's identity had allegedly been exposed, followed by police action over the alleged disclosure. The episode underlines why identifying information must be assessed not only individually, but also in combination with what has already been published.
There is another dimension particular to Nagaland's information ecosystem. Social organisations, tribal bodies, student unions and community groups often intervene in cases involving children in good faith: to demand justice, support victims, condemn alleged wrongdoing or press authorities to act. These interventions can be important public-interest actions. But press statements and public appeals may also contain names, villages, family relationships, schools or other details that cross legal boundaries.
Good faith does not automatically make disclosure lawful. Nor can a newsroom assume that reproducing a statement transfers editorial responsibility to its source. Journalism's role is to filter, verify and contextualise information before publication. If a statement contains identifying details, the substance of the intervention can be reported without exposing the child.
Digital journalism makes this responsibility even greater. A photograph can be screenshotted, a video downloaded and a headline reproduced across platforms. Even after correction or deletion, identifying material may continue circulating.
The answer is not to stop reporting crimes against children. It is to report them better and without harm.
Before publication, editors should ask: Could this identify the child, stigmatise them or cause further harm? If family, community or online audiences could piece together the identity from the details, the copy needs reconsideration. Protect against both indirect identification and secondary victimisation.
For the media, the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct and the NCPCR’s Handbook for Media Professionals on Child Rights provide essential guidance on responsible reporting, centred on privacy, dignity, safety, best interests and protection from harm. These principles should form a mandatory editorial policy in every newsroom.
For Nagaland, the next step should be local. The state's media community needs its own child-rights reporting guidelines, informed by law and established professional standards but responsive to the realities of reporting in close-knit communities.
Good journalism does not require every available detail. It requires the right details. While maintaining the public interest, the casualty must not be the child's rights, dignity or safety.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
