Kolkata doctor rape case: The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday flagged the fact that the identity of the victim of rape and murder at RG Kar hospital had been rampantly shared across the nation. It is to be noted that sharing the details of rape or any sexual assault victims is illegal under the law.
The image and name of the RG Kar sexual assault victim was widely shared on social media. Initially the trainee doctor was tagged as ‘Nirbhaya 2’, drawing from the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder incident. However, social media users opposed the same, citing “she is not a movie sequel”.
Several users had also encouraged taking the name of the trainee doctor who died a painful death after being on duty for 48 hours at RG Kar hospital.
YouTuber Dhruv Rathee had also shared posts revealing the victim's identity. Rathee's post received significant engagement, with 66,000 likes and over 12,000 retweets.
Further, a complaint has been filed against the former principal of Kolkata’s R G Kar Medical College and Hospital, Dr Sandip Ghosh, accusing him of disclosing the identity of the 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor who was raped and killed on the hospital premises, reports Indian Express.
Kolkata Police have issued summonses to former BJP MP Locket Chatterjee and two renowned doctors – Dr Kunal Sarkar and Dr Subarna Goswami – for allegedly spreading rumours and disclosing the identity of the woman doctor.
Disclosing the identity of a sexual assault victim is a criminal offense.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, criminalizes such disclosure.
According to Section 72 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita anyone who prints or publishes the name or any information that could reveal the identity of a victim of offences like rape or sexual assault could be punished with imprisonment for up to two years.
The Supreme Court has shed light on the severe societal issues encountered by survivors of sexual assault, emphasizing that they are frequently marginalized and shunned by their communities.
In its 2018 ruling on the Nipun Saxena case, the Court highlighted the critical importance of maintaining confidentiality to safeguard victims from additional trauma and to foster a more supportive environment for reporting such offenses.
