Court records in POCSO matters read differently from other criminal files: the victim appears as initials or a pseudonym, addresses are masked, and judgments are published with anonymised titles. This is not a courtesy but a statutory command. Section 23 of the POCSO Act prohibits disclosure of a child victim's identity in any form of media without the Special Court's permission; Section 33(7) obliges the Special Court itself to protect the identity through the trial; and Section 72 of the BNS — the successor to Section 228A IPC — criminalises identity disclosure for victims of specified sexual offences generally. This explainer sets out who is bound, what counts as disclosure, and how the rules operate in Delhi practice.
Three interlocking provisions
| Provision | Who it binds | What it commands |
|---|---|---|
| Section 23, POCSO Act | Media, studios, photographic facilities, publishers and outlet owners | No report or comment lowering the child's reputation or infringing privacy; no disclosure of identity particulars without the Special Court's written-reasons permission |
| Section 33(7), POCSO Act | The Special Court | Ensure the child's identity is not disclosed at any time during investigation or trial, save where disclosure serves the child's interest |
| Section 72, BNS (old Section 228A IPC) | Any person | No printing or publication of the name or any matter identifying the victim of specified sexual offences, including those against children |
How anonymisation works in practice
In Delhi's district courts and the High Court, the protection translates into working conventions: cause titles carry initials or descriptions rather than names; certified copies and judgments mask the identity particulars; victim details travel in sealed covers where needed; and in-camera trial under POCSO keeps the public out of the courtroom altogether. Counsel on both sides share the obligation — pleadings, bail applications, appeals and even office files must carry the anonymisation through, because a disclosure in a publicly accessible filing is as much a breach as a news report. Orders uploaded to court websites are expected to be redaction-checked before publication.
The digital dimension
The provisions were drafted for print and broadcast, but their heaviest contemporary work is online. Social-media posts naming a child, forwarded videos of an incident, screenshots of an FIR, and local-news pages that identify the school or family all fall squarely within the prohibitions — and each share is a fresh disclosure by the person sharing. Takedown is available through the platform's legal process and through directions in the criminal proceedings; prosecution of the originator proceeds under Section 23(4) POCSO and Section 72 BNS. Families should preserve the offending URLs and report quickly: identification spreads in hours, and the practical remedy is speed.
Why the rule is absolute in design
The statutory scheme reflects a legislative judgment that identification compounds the harm of the offence itself — in stigma, in the child's rehabilitation, and in the willingness of families to report at all. That is why the exception is child-centric rather than publisher-centric: the only question the Special Court may ask is whether disclosure serves the child, never whether the story is important. It is also why the net is cast over indirect identification; in a neighbourhood or school community, a handful of particulars identifies a child as effectively as a name.
For practitioners, the discipline is simple to state and demanding to keep: anonymise at the first document and audit every subsequent one. For families, the rule is protection, not silence — reporting the offence, pursuing the trial and seeking compensation all proceed fully with the identity sealed.
This is a general explainer on identity-protection law in POCSO proceedings under Section 23 and Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 72 of the BNS. It is informational only and relates to no particular case or client.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is prohibited from disclosure?
Anything that may directly or indirectly identify the child: name, photograph, address, school, family details, neighbourhood and other particulars whose combination points to the child. Section 23 POCSO frames the prohibition functionally — the test is identifiability, not the literal use of a name — so a report that names the child's parent, school or lane can breach it as surely as one naming the child.
Who is bound by the prohibition?
Everyone in the chain: media and publishers under Section 23 POCSO, with liability extending to the publisher or owner of the outlet; any person, including police officers, public servants and lawyers, under Section 72 BNS; and the Special Court itself, which must keep the identity protected in its proceedings and records under Section 33(7), permitting disclosure only where it is in the child's own interest.
What are the penalties for breach?
Section 23(4) POCSO punishes contravention with imprisonment of six months to one year, or fine, or both. Section 72 BNS carries imprisonment up to two years and fine. Disclosure through online posts is equally covered — republication and sharing are themselves disclosures — and courts have ordered takedowns of offending content in addition to prosecution.
Can the identity ever be lawfully disclosed?
Narrowly. The Special Court may permit disclosure under Section 23(2) POCSO only for reasons recorded in writing and only where it is in the interest of the child — for instance, tracing an abducted child. The scheme recognises no public-interest or newsworthiness exception, and the consent of the family does not by itself authorise publication while the statutory bar operates.