On Friday, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Kerala High Court that refused to pursue legal action against a judicial magistrate for disclosing the identity of a rape survivor in his ruling.

During oral proceedings, Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra stressed that the mistake could have been unintentional, taking into account the heavy workload of judicial officers.

"Are you holding a grudge against the judicial officer? We're inundated with cases and we're not immune to making mistakes ourselves. Are you suggesting we impose costs for filing this appeal?" Justice Roy queried, addressing the appellant's counsel who had sought action against the trial court judge.

The issue revolves around a decision made by a trial court in Kattakkada, Kerala, where a judicial magistrate refused to revoke the bail granted to a rape accused. Additionally, within the same ruling, the magistrate disclosed the name of the rape survivor.

The rape survivor subsequently sought action against the judicial officer for disclosing her identity, which contravened the legal obligation to maintain the confidentiality of rape survivors. In pursuit of this, she lodged a petition with the High Court, seeking action against the judicial magistrate.

A single judge of the High Court declined to mandate any such action, although directives were issued for the prompt anonymization of all case records to safeguard the anonymity of the rape survivor.

The Court determined that Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes the disclosure of the identity of victims of specific offenses such as rape, solely applies to individuals who print or publish the victim's identity. According to the ruling, this provision does not encompass situations where a court, during its proceedings, unintentionally discloses such information.

The judgment underscored the protection afforded to judges under the Judges (Protection) Act, emphasizing that the magistrate was fulfilling judicial duties while issuing the order.

The single-judge also emphasized the crucial importance of preserving the anonymity of victims of sexual offenses and encouraged judges and judicial officers to be mindful of this. They suggested proactive measures to anonymize details in cases involving such victims.

The decision of the single judge was upheld by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in January of this year. However, the survivor subsequently challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Advocate MT George represented the survivor before the Supreme Court and argued that the magistrate's actions might have been motivated by ulterior motives.