Publishing a Child Victim's Identity in Good Faith Is Still an Offence Under Section 74 JJ Act: Karnataka HC Dismisses Press Reporter's Quashing Plea

The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad refused to quash a charge sheet against a press reporter and a newspaper editor for publishing a news report that identified a child assault victim, rejecting the defence that publication was made in the child's interest.

The Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a petition filed by a press reporter and a newspaper editor seeking to quash a criminal charge sheet registered against them under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting singly, held that the prohibition on disclosing the identity of a child victim is absolute in character, and a journalist cannot take shelter behind the argument that the publication was intended to secure justice for the child. The ruling has direct bearing on how the press handles crime reporting involving child victims, witnesses, or children in need of care and protection.

The Charge Sheet and the News Report

On 20 January 2020, Girish Patil, a press reporter from Joida in Uttara Kannada district, published a newspaper report about an incident in which a school teacher had allegedly assaulted a child. On the same day, the victim's father lodged a complaint against the teacher, and an FIR was registered.

The police completed investigation and filed a charge sheet on 24 March 2020 before the JMFC Court at Dandeli, alleging an offence under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — a provision that prohibits any publication disclosing the name, address, school, or any particular likely to identify a child involved in an inquiry, investigation, or judicial proceeding as a victim, witness, or a child in need of care and protection.

Petitioner No. 2, Ashok, is the editor of Janamadyama, a Kannada daily published from Sirsi, Uttara Kannada, in which the report appeared. Both petitioners were arraigned in Criminal Case No. 06/2021 before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dandeli. They moved the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 101182 of 2022 under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings.

The Petitioners' Argument: Publication Was in the Child's Interest

Counsel for the petitioners advanced a two-part argument. First, the news report was published to secure justice for the child victim and not to tarnish the child's image. Second, Section 74(1) of the Act of 2015 targets disclosures relating to a child in conflict with law — that is, a child accused of an offence — and not disclosures about a child who is a victim. Since the child in the report was a victim of assault, and was not being projected as a child in conflict with law, the petitioners argued the prohibition under Section 74 was not attracted at all.

The State, represented by High Court Government Pleader Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, opposed the petition. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Rajeshwari Krishnamurti, the President of the Child Welfare Committee, Karwar, was served with notice but did not appear.

How the Court Read Section 74

Justice Hegde set out the full text of Section 74 and examined its scope carefully. The provision bars any report in a newspaper, magazine, news-sheet, audio-visual media, or other form of communication, relating to any inquiry, investigation, or judicial proceeding, that discloses the name, address, school, or any other particular which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law, a child in need of care and protection, or a child who is a victim or witness of a crime. The proviso permits disclosure only when the Board or Committee, for reasons recorded in writing, determines that disclosure is in the best interest of the child.

The Court found the text of Section 74 to be unambiguous. It covers child victims expressly, and not only children in conflict with law. The argument that the prohibition applies only when the child is portrayed as being in conflict with law was squarely rejected. As the Court put it, “even if the child is a victim, the name of the child should not be disclosed.”

On the petitioners' principal defence — that the publication was made for the child's benefit — the Court declined to accept it as a valid ground. It observed that children are sensitive to many matters, and wide publicity given to an incident involving a child, even where the child is the victim, may not always be in the child's interest. The Court reasoned that a child may respond to such publicity in ways that are harmful to the child's own wellbeing, and the legislature had kept this in mind when enacting Section 74.

Legislative Object and the Rejection of the Good-Faith Defence

Justice Hegde examined the object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Act consolidates and amends the law relating to children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, with the aim of ensuring their basic needs through care, protection, development, treatment, and social reintegration through a child-friendly approach.

The Court held that the petitioners could not raise a defence of publication in the child's interest in the face of the object of the enactment and the legislative intent underlying Section 74. The provision does not carve out an exception for bona fide publication. Any such exception exists only through the formal route of the Board or Committee recording reasons and permitting disclosure in the best interest of the child. No such sanction was obtained in this case.

The Court's reasoning means that the intent behind a publication is not a defence once it is established that the report disclosed particulars capable of identifying a child victim in the context of an ongoing inquiry, investigation, or judicial proceeding. The only statutory exception is the written permission of the relevant Board or Committee — not a journalist's assessment of what serves the child's interest.

Outcome

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and dismissed Criminal Petition No. 101182 of 2022 by oral order dated 30 June 2026. The charge sheet registered under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 06/2021, and the proceedings before the JMFC Court, Dandeli, will therefore continue.