Delhi HC questions govt for revealing identity of POCSO survivor

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 8, questioned the Union government over the disclosure of a sexual harassment survivor’s identity in a POSH handbook published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sought an explanation from the Centre on how the survivor’s name came to be disclosed in an official publication and directed the counsel representing the Union government to obtain instructions and provide the names of officials responsible for preparing the handbook’s content.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man accused of workplace sexual harassment, who sought the removal of his name from the handbook after informing the court that the dispute between the parties had subsequently been settled, The News Minute reported.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that an order of a Labour Tribunal had been reproduced in the Ministry’s POSH handbook as an illustrative case. According to the lawyer, the material revealed not only the petitioner’s identity but also that of the woman who had complained of sexual harassment. The counsel further pointed out that the handbook was widely available online.

Representing the Union government, its counsel submitted that the handbook had been published in November 2015 for educational purposes and that the settlement between the parties had taken place only recently.

The explanation failed to satisfy the court. Justice Sharma questioned how the identity of a sexual harassment survivor could be disclosed even in an educational publication, noting that such information would ordinarily be protected even in judicial proceedings.

The judge observed that the stated educational purpose of the handbook did not require the survivor’s name to be revealed.

Justice Sharma pointed out that courts themselves generally use anonymised references such as “X” when dealing with cases involving victims whose identities are legally protected.

The court also referred to directions issued by the Supreme Court and various High Courts requiring the identities of survivors of sexual offences to be protected. Justice Sharma emphasised that disclosure of such identities was prohibited under the law and could attract penal consequences.

The judge further stressed that the Union government, as the authority responsible for publishing and circulating the handbook, was itself required to ensure compliance with these legal safeguards. She questioned how an official government publication could reveal the survivor’s identity and then be made available through the ministry’s website.

The court also rejected any suggestion that the authorities could escape responsibility because the parties had approached the court only after the handbook was published. Justice Sharma made it clear that a delay in approaching the court by the affected parties would not relieve the government of its obligation to comply with the law.

The court noted that legal safeguards protecting the identities of survivors were already well established and that neither the passage of time nor the subsequent settlement between the parties could justify the disclosure.

The petitioner has also sought the removal of the relevant material from the handbook and its de-indexing from internet search results. His counsel submitted that the publication continued to be widely accessible online.

The High Court has asked the Union government to provide details of the officials responsible for the content of the handbook. The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on Wednesday, September 9.