BACK TO SECTIONS(2019) 2 SCC 703
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 72
Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc.
Replaces colonial-era: IPC 228A
BailableCognizable: CognizableAny Magistrate
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 228A to BNS 72.
2
Placed prominently early in the chapter on offences against women and children.
3
Digital and social media publications clearly within the scope of 'printing or publishing'.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under sections 64 to 71 is alleged or found to have been committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
Legal Commentary
Section 72 protects a rape or sexual assault victim's anonymity absolutely. This is not merely a personal privacy right — it is a structural protection for the justice system. Research consistently shows that fear of social stigma and public exposure is among the primary reasons sexual assault victims do not report crimes. If filing a complaint means your name and neighbourhood are published, the deterrent to reporting becomes overwhelming. BNS 72 makes disclosure of the victim's identity — in any medium, including newspapers, television, social media, and online publications — a punishable offence. It covers not just the name but 'any matter' from which identity could be determined — the neighbourhood, workplace, family members' names, or descriptions distinctive enough to enable identification. Exceptions exist for disclosure authorised by the victim herself (if an adult), disclosure for medical or scientific purposes, and court-authorised disclosure in the victim's interests. The section applies to anyone who publishes — a journalist, a blogger, a social media user sharing a news article, even someone forwarding a WhatsApp message identifying the victim.
Landmark Precedents
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions protecting identities of sexual assault victims, including prohibiting disclosure even in judicial orders and court filings — extending the protection beyond IPC 228A (now BNS 72).
Case Simulations
"A newspaper publishing the name and photograph of a rape victim alongside her FIR — direct violation of BNS 72."
"A Twitter user sharing a viral thread that names a rape victim — a cognizable offence regardless of intent."
"A TV anchor describing the victim's colony, college, and physical appearance on live television — identification possible, violation complete."
"A relative of the accused posting on Facebook identifying the complainant by name — BNS 72 applies fully."
Expert Insights
It depends. If other details — neighbourhood, college, family connections — could enable identification, sharing may still violate BNS 72. The standard is 'any matter which may make known the identity', not just the name.
An adult victim can authorise disclosure of her own identity. The prohibition protects victims from unwanted exposure, not from exercising their own voice. Several survivors in India have chosen to go public to advocate for justice.
Yes. The prohibition on disclosing the victim's identity is permanent and not contingent on the trial outcome. Acquittal does not make the victim's identity disclosable.