KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has observed that publishing details of children who are victims of molestation on social media would attract case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)- 2012. The court made it clear that such children should not be given any publicity, to ensure that their future and career are not affected.
A Single Bench issued the order while dismissing a petition filed by Sudheesh Kumar of Neyyattinkara, seeking to quash an order by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to conduct a probe against the petitioner, who allegedly revealed the identity of molestation victims who were minors. The petitioner posted a Facebook comment after the headmaster of an unaided school failed to take action against a teacher who sexually abused three girl students, despite the parents filing complaint.
The teacher was not punished despite the Neyyattinkara educational officer recommencing action against the teacher, which prompted the petitioner to post the Facebook message. According to the police, the petitioner took up the issue and filed an RTI query after five years, when the victims are doing Plus-I in the same school, for reasons best known to him, and made the Facebook post with disgraceful comments.
“Disclosure of identity of the children contravened Section- 23(1) and (2) of the POCSO Act. As per the Section-23, no person shall report or comment on any child, using media/studio or photographic facilities, without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering the child’s reputation or i n f r i n g i n g upon privacy,” said the court.
Referring to dictionary, the court observed that the definition of media was ‘a medium’ - any intervening means, instrument, or agency. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that media was meant for ‘broadcasts for public attention’ was not having any bearing on the issue in question. The court observed that since mere publication of details of the victim would attract offence under Sub-section (4) of the Act, the petitioner’s contention that he did not have any malafide intention to expose the child could not be sustained under law.