Twitter
Advertisement

Student files police complaint against Madhu Kishwar for revealing Tehelka journalist's name on Twitter

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

National Students Union of India (NSUI) Goa state president Hasiba Amin filed a written complaint against activist Madhu Kishwar for tweeting the name of the journalist, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal.

Amin had to try at several police stations before finally filing the complaint with the crime branch investigating the case.

On 22nd November, Kishwar tweeted the victim's name without realising that it is an offence. She later deleted it after being widely criticised on Twitter.

"Revealing the girl's name on social media where Kishwar has over 40,000 followers is going to lead to further victimisation of the journalist. I have a screenshot of Kishwar's tweet as proof," says Amin who later unfollowed Kishwar, like many others who tweeted with the #unfollowKishwar tag.

Amin says she was shocked when she first read what Kishwar had done. She then wanted to do something about it and so asked her friend to file a complaint in Delhi.

"The Delhi police said that we should file the complaint with the Goa police. I visited the Agaçaim police station after which I was sent to Panjim Police station and then to the cyber cell. All of them refused to register the complaint. I finally gave a written complaint to the CID, Crime Branch in Goa that is investigating the Tehelka case. She is punishable under Section 228A of the IPC," says Amin.

What does section 228A in The Indian Penal Code say?

228A. 1[ Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc.--

(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub- section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or publication is-

(a) by or under the order in writing of the officer- in- charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation; or

(b) by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the victim; or

(c) where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next- of- kin of the victim: Provided that no such authorisation shall be given by the next- of- kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section," recognised welfare institution or organisation" means a social welfare institution or organisation recognised in this behalf by the Central or State Government.

(3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in sub- section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section.]

[IPC text via http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1696350/]

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement