The Delhi High Court has ruled that the identity of a sexual offence survivor must remain protected even when the accused persons were not summoned for the alleged offence. Justice Amit Mahajan passed the directions while allowing a petition filed by a woman seeking the removal of her name, parentage and other identifying details from three earlier judicial orders that remained accessible on court websites and third-party portals.
The Court directed the concerned authorities to mask her identity, observing that the statutory protection under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), extends to cases where a sexual offence has merely been alleged.
Background
The petitioner, referred to as Ms X, had filed a criminal complaint in 2007 alleging offences under Sections 324, 325, 376, 506(2) and 511 of the IPC.
In September 2011, the Metropolitan Magistrate declined to summon the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and summoned them only under Section 323 IPC. Her subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in May 2013. The Delhi High Court also dismissed her petition under Section 482 CrPC in July 2016.
The petitioner later approached the High Court seeking anonymisation of these judicial records. She submitted that the judgments disclosed her name, parentage and address and were easily accessible through court websites and third-party portals. She also claimed that circulation of these documents had exposed her to harassment, physical violence and social ostracism.
Justice Amit Mahajan clarified that the petitioner was not an accused seeking removal of her criminal record but a complainant and alleged victim of a sexual offence. Therefore, the statutory protection against disclosure of identity remained applicable.
The Court explained that the protection under Section 228A IPC attaches to the allegation itself, irrespective of whether the accused were ultimately summoned for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that anonymity extends beyond withholding a victim's name. Other personal details that could indirectly reveal the victim's identity must also remain protected.
The Supreme Court had observed:
"It is obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of such victim. We are clearly of the view that the phrase 'matter which may make known the identity of the person' does not solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be disclosed but it also means that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media."
The High Court further noted that no public interest was served by keeping the petitioner's identifying details accessible online when such disclosure could result in the very victimisation that the law seeks to prevent.
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the Delhi High Court Registry to mask or remove the petitioner's name and identity markers from the relevant judicial records. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, was also directed to ensure similar masking in the 2011 and 2013 orders.
The Court additionally permitted the petitioner to approach third-party portals, search engines and intermediaries to host masked versions of the three orders.
It observed:
"Whenever the petitioner would apply or approach any of the search engines, third-party portals or intermediaries, it is expected that they would follow the mandate of Section 228A of the IPC, now Section 72 of the BNS, and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena (supra), as noted hereinabove, and mask any other material which may be on the record about the aforementioned cases wherein the name and identity markers of the petitioner are reflected."
The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Ms X v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11525/2023
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: October 29, 2026
