The recent directive by the Supreme Court regarding the protection of minor victims under the ambit of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has brought to light a crucial issue of non-compliance within the legal and law enforcement frameworks in West Bengal. 

In a notable case, the Court observed a failure to mask the identity of a minor victim, contravening established legal protocols and previous judicial directives.

A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale expressed concern over the blatant disregard for mandatory provisions outlined in the Nipun Saxena Vs Union of India (2019) case. 

The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the identity of victims, particularly minors, as mandated by Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC. These statutes unequivocally prohibit the disclosure of information that could lead to the identification of victims of sexual offenses.

The essence of the POCSO Act lies in shielding the identity of child victims unless explicitly permitted by a Special Court for justifiable reasons, and in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Court, in its previous rulings, has reiterated the need for strict adherence to these provisions to prevent any inadvertent exposure of victims to public scrutiny or potential harm.

The failure to mask the identity of the victim in the case under review not only highlights a procedural lapse but also underscores the broader issue of awareness and sensitivity within the legal and law enforcement communities. Sensitization programs targeting judicial officers and police personnel are imperative to ensure a comprehensive understanding of legal mandates concerning victim protection, especially in cases involving minors.

The Supreme Court's directive to forward the order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta and the Chief Justice reflects a proactive approach towards addressing systemic shortcomings. 

While adjudicating on the bail plea of the petitioner, the Court emphasized that legal indulgence cannot be extended in cases where fundamental legal requirements are overlooked. 

The Nipun Saxena case cited by the Court serves as a legal anchor, reminding stakeholders of their responsibilities in preserving the anonymity of victims and maintaining the sanctity of legal proceedings. 

The broader implication of this directive extends beyond this singular case, signaling a clarion call for enhanced vigilance and adherence to established legal norms across the justice delivery system.

Case: UTPAL MANDAL @ UTPAL MONDAL vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR,

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).8058/2024.

Click to read/download order.