Confidentiality of Victims & Children: Legal Protection Against Identity Disclosure

Introduction

In India’s legal framework, the protection of identity for victims – especially children, survivors of sexual violence, trafficking, and other vulnerable groups – is not just a procedural requirement but a constitutional mandate rooted in dignity, privacy, and justice. Multiple laws, judicial precedents, and administrative protocols ensure that the identity of such individuals remains confidential throughout the legal process. This article outlines the key provisions, penalties, and case law that govern identity protection.

Why Confidentiality Matters

Protecting the confidentiality of victims – especially children – is essential to upholding their fundamental rights to dignity, privacy, and safety. When a victim’s identity is publicly disclosed, it can lead to secondary victimization, social stigma, and even retaliation. Confidentiality empowers survivors to seek justice without fear, creating a safer and more supportive legal environment. In cases of sexual assault or trafficking, revealing a victim’s name can result in severe ostracism and psychological harm. In honour-based crimes, identity disclosure can be life-threatening, exposing survivors to further violence from their own families or communities.

Legal Safeguards

Legal safeguards play a critical role in enforcing this protection. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act mandates strict confidentiality for child victims, while Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prohibits the disclosure of identities in sexual assault cases. These provisions ensure that the focus remains on delivering justice – not on publicizing personal trauma. Upholding confidentiality is not just a legal requirement – it’s a moral responsibility that reinforces a survivor-centric approach to justice.

Categories of Victims and Legal Safeguards

Key Case Laws and Judicial Precedents

• Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court held that the identity of rape survivors must not be disclosed under any circumstances. Section 228A of the IPC (now reflected in BNS Section 72) prohibits such disclosure. The Court emphasized that even indirect identification – such as revealing the victim’s address or familial details – violates their right to privacy.
• Laxmi v. Union of India (2013): In this landmark PIL, the Supreme Court directed that the identity of acid attack survivors must be protected to preserve their dignity and prevent further trauma. The judgment reinforced the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): The Court recognized honour-based crimes as a serious violation of constitutional rights and mandated that victims’ identities be protected to prevent social ostracization and retaliation.

Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – A Cornerstone of Child Protection:

Section 74 prohibits the disclosure of any identifying information of children who are:

• Victims of crime
• In need of care and protection
• Witnesses in legal proceedings
• Accused or involved in conflict with law

Disclosure is permitted only with written approval from the Child Welfare Committee or Juvenile Justice Board. Violation of this provision can lead to:

• Up to 6 months imprisonment
• Fine up to ₹2,00,000
• Or both

Protocols for Law Enforcement Officers

To ensure compliance with confidentiality laws, police officers must:

• Use coded identifiers like “Victim A” or “Child X” in all official records (GD, FIR, Case Diary, communications).
• Clearly mark documents as “CONFIDENTIAL”.
• Conduct interviews and depositions in-camera (private setting).
• Avoid sharing the identities of victims, children in conflict with the law, child witnesses, or children in need of care and protection on social media, WhatsApp, or with individuals not directly involved in the case.
• Maintain confidentiality even during media interactions.

Constitutional Backing — Article 21

Constitutional Backing (Article 21) – Right to Privacy and Dignity:

The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to privacy, dignity, and protection from secondary victimization. Disclosure of identity without consent or legal sanction violates this fundamental right and undermines the victim’s access to justice and rehabilitation.

Conclusion

Identity protection is not merely a legal formality – it is a moral and constitutional imperative. Survivors of violence, especially children, deserve a justice system that respects their dignity and shields them from further harm. Every stakeholder – law enforcement, judiciary, media, the general public, and civil society – must uphold these protections with vigilance and empathy.