Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 72
Disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences, etc
(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 64 or section 65 or section 66 or section 67 or section 68 or section 69 or section 70 or section 71 is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or publication is—
(a) by or under the order in writing of the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation; or
(b) by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the victim; or
(c) where the victim is dead or a child or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next of kin of the victim: Provided that no such authorisation shall be given by the next of kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “recognised welfare institution or organisation” means a social welfare institution or organisation recognised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
Why this exists
This provision continues the protection first introduced into Indian law through Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, added in 1983 after public outrage over the Supreme Court's Mathura rape case judgment, which had exposed how victims of sexual violence faced social stigma, harassment, and re-traumatisation when their identities became public. Parliament wanted to shield survivors from the shame and danger of being publicly named in media reports, and to encourage victims to come forward without fear of social exposure. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries this protection forward and updates the cross-referenced offence sections to match the new code.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 228A IPC), the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) stressed that the identity of rape victims must not be disclosed, even in judgments, and courts should refer to them anonymously or by initials. Later, in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines requiring courts, police, and media to protect the identity of victims of sexual offences, especially children, restricting even courts from disclosing names in orders and mandating that FIRs relating to such offences not be uploaded publicly with identifying details. These rulings shaped how the exceptions (police investigation, victim's own consent, or next of kin's consent through a recognised institution) are understood and applied strictly.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The law only stops newspapers from naming victims; social media posts don't count.
Fact: The law applies broadly to any 'printing or publishing' of identifying information, which courts have interpreted to include digital and social media disclosures, not just traditional print press. - Myth: A journalist can publish a rape victim's name if the family agrees informally.
Fact: The law requires specific written authorisation, and if the victim is dead, a child, or of unsound mind, that consent must go only to the head of a government-recognised welfare organisation — not directly to media or others. - Myth: This law prevents courts from ever mentioning the victim's details.
Fact: Courts and police may use victim details internally for investigation and trial, but public disclosure identifying the victim is restricted; the Supreme Court has directed courts to use non-identifying references (like initials) even in judgments.