Safeguarding children’s identities shared responsibility of media and all stakeholders
By - Moa Jamir
The recent observation by a judge that the media plays a pivotal role in protecting the identity of children whether as victims, accused, or witnesses, comes at a timely juncture. Addressing a an event in Kohima Press Club, District & Sessions Judge Mezivolu T Therieh, also a former Registrar of the Supreme Court of India, reiterated that children, as the most vulnerable section of society, require heightened sensitivity and legal protection. She questioned whether the media’s current priorities lie in child rights or sensationalism.
This intervention is especially relevant in the context of Nagaland. Despite good intentions, media outlets, civil society groups, and individuals often inadvertently or otherwise, disclose or hint at a child’s identity, whether through naming schools, localities, or other identifying details. With the proliferation of digital platforms and instant sharing of press statements and incidents on social media, identity protection is increasingly compromised.
India's legal framework, however, is unambiguous. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018) laid down strict prohibitions against disclosing the identity of victims of sexual offences, including minors. The Court directed that names, addresses, photographs, and other identifying details must not be published across any platform-print, digital, or social media. Among others, it held that FIRs in such cases must not be uploaded publicly, and documents should be anonymised. In cases of deceased or mentally unsound victims, disclosure, even with family consent, must be judicially vetted.
These principles were reaffirmed in the 2024 case of Kinnori Ghosh v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court ordered the immediate removal of the name and images of a deceased rape victim shared widely on social media. The Apex Court also declared such disclosures a violation of the victim’s dignity and privacy, a constitutional right that extends beyond death.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, reinforces identity protection for victims of sexual offences with Section 72 prohibiting disclosure of their identity, with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 2012 further reinforces this obligation. In the Act, even the Special Courts under POCSO are also directed to take necessary steps to prevent exposure of a child’s identity at all stages of judicial proceedings.
Protection of identity also extends to juvenile justice contexts. Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it is illegal to publish any details that may reveal the identity of a child in conflict with law (CCL) or a child in need of care and protection (CNCP). Section 74 of the JJ Act mandates absolute confidentiality, barring disclosure of names, addresses, schools, or any particulars that could lead to identification. Rare exceptions may be granted by a Juvenile Justice Board or Child Welfare Committee only if it serves the best interest of the child.
The Press Council of India Act, 1978, through its norms for journalistic conduct, also directs media organisations to refrain from disclosing names or other particulars that may lead to the identification of juvenile victims or accused. The Council has consistently advised against sensationalised or speculative reporting in such cases, warning that the dignity and privacy of children must not be compromised under the guise of public interest.
Unlike in other cases, the law allows publication of names and photographs of missing children to aid recovery, as upheld in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2012). This exception, based on the child’s best interest, however, should be undertaken responsibly and with official supervision.
Even unintentional disclosure, thus, can inflict lasting harm, compromising a child’s dignity, safety, and future. While the legal framework is clear and the Supreme Court unwavering in its directives, the real challenge lies in awareness and accountability. Media houses, civil society organisations, and individuals alike must act with care and responsibility. Those who claim to speak for children must first uphold their right to protection, for protecting their identity is the first step toward safeguarding their rights.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
