The statutory law, the courts as well as the society in general have always been keen to protect the identify of female victims in certain types of offences committed against them. We at Truth of Gujarat, quite apart from the statutory provisions, respect the sentiments of such restraint and would always protect the identity as well as privacy of a woman. A question however has arisen as to whether in the stalking of Madhuri by Gujarat’s Anti Terrorist Squad, whether the person called Madhuri falls in the classification of a ‘victim’ whose identity is either required to be protected under the provisions of law or in the facts and circumstances of the case. As it often happens in our case, this question is being raised by ‘BJP Bhakts’.
Lets look at the legal angle first. The Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code has in fact made a wholesome provision placing a restraint order of not revealing the identity of the victim when she’s a victim of rape as defined under Section 376 as well as under Sections 376A, 376B, 376C and 376D. Though this provision did not come in the way of superior courts like High Court and Supreme Court, from revealing the identity of victims in their judgement, in view of preventing social victimization, the law courts volunteered to suo moto apply the provision to their judgement as well.
In this case of Madhuri being stalked by Gujarat Police, it is nobody’s allegation that any offence under Section 376 as well as under Sections 376A, 376B, 376C and 376D has been committed against Madhuri to attract the provisions of Section 228A, meaning thereby that it is not a case of a sexual assault against a woman and consequently the restraint under the law not to release Madhuri’s true identity is not applicable here.
However, we would still examine the facts and circumstances as to whether any special facts exist in the present case that requires the restraint against exposing of Madhuri’s identity. The initial allegations in the expose by Cobra Post and Gulail was that an illegal stalking of Madhuri had been conducted by the Gujarat Police was conducted under the unauthorized orders of Amit Shah. This allegation was rebutted by the father of Madhuri, Pranlal Soni, in form of a letter which was released from the BJP Headquarters. In this letter, he states that it was he who had orally requested Mr Narendra Modi to provide protection to his daughter since she had to travel at odd hours between a hotel and hospital in the city of Ahmedabad while her mother was at the hospital. Thus according to the counter allegation made by Madhuri’s father, she was in fact a beneficiary of the state action rather than the victim of the state action. We may therefore ask as to how even by a stretch of imagination, Madhuri would be entitled to the restraint order envisaged under Section 228A of IPC.
Therefore, in facts of the present case, Madhuri should not have any issues to be referred to as Mansi Soni which is her true identity.
Follow the author here:Post: Is it necessary to hide the true identity of Madhuri under law?
Site: Truth Of Gujarat - Lies are Transient, Truth is Eternal