New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal for allegedly revealing the identity of a minor rape victim who succumbed to her injuries.
An FIR was registered against Maliwal by the Delhi Police in 2016 when she was the chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women, for allegedly violating provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence.
What did the High Court say?
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna refused to quash the FIR, saying from the bare perusal of section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it is evident that if any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication disclose the name, address or school or any particulars which may lead to the identification of the child in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection, would be an offence.
Justice Krishna rejected Maliwal’s objection that the cognizance on the Chargesheet itself is bad in law and also rejected her claim that she has protection under the law for her actions done in good faith and said that it is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.
“Prima facie, offence under section 74 read with section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed,” the High Court said and added, “Insofar as the Petitioner’s claim that she has protection under section 100 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for her actions done in good faith is concerned, it is her defence which is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.”
High Court rejected Maliwal’s submissions of constitution of an SIT
Maliwal also sought investigations by SIT in the two FIRs – rape case and kidnapping of the victim after she had gone missing, submitting that the investigations in the said two FIRs have not been done by the police fairly and were being manipulated at the instance of the accused persons.
The High Court, however, said that the chargesheets in both the cases have been filed in in 2016 and both the cases are pending trial and it is now for the trial court to consider the same and no fruitful purpose would be served by referring further investigations to SIT and, therefore, the relief of constitution of an SIT has become infructuous.
14-year-old minor girl succumbed to her injuries on July 23, 2016
The 14-year-old minor girl succumbed to her injuries on July 23, 2016 in a hospital in the national capital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour in Burari area of the national capital. It was alleged that she was forced a corrosive substance down her throat, which damaged her internal organs.
What has the police said?
As per the police, Maliwal circulated a notice she had sent to deputy commissioner of police of the area seeking to know about the investigation in the rape case and the notice, which was given to the print and electronic media, reportedly named victim. It has been alleged in the FIR that the notice was “intentionally circulated” on various WhatsApp groups and shown by TV channels.
Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dropped on account of the presence of the consent of the victim’s parents to disclose her name and section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added in the case.
