Rajasthan HC Directs Sealed-Cover Filing of Victim Photographs, Issues Eight-Point Protocol for Courts and Police
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that annexing obscene photographs of victims in open court files violates Article 21, and issued a detailed protocol binding the Registry, trial courts, and police statewide.
While hearing a bail petition in which obscene photographs of the victim had been annexed openly to the petition, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, issued a comprehensive eight-point protocol on 21 May 2026 governing how courts, the Registry, investigating agencies, and police stations across Rajasthan must handle photographs and videos depicting private moments of victims in sexual offence cases. The order, passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7480/2024, is reportable. The court found that open annexure of such material in court files exposes the victim's identity to an indeterminate number of persons, constitutes an invasion of her right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and creates a real risk of misuse through social media. The directions extend to both the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the Bench at Jaipur, and are to be circulated to every judicial officer in the State.
The Petition and the Immediate Trigger
The petitioner, Naveen, confined at District Jail, Alwar, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging his custody. In the course of that filing, obscene photographs of the victim were annexed with the petition without being placed in a sealed envelope. The court took note of this directly: the photographs exposed the victim's identity in the public domain and invaded her privacy and dignity.
The matter before the court was a bail application, but the conduct it exposed was one the court said it had “noticed on several occasions, while hearing bail applications, criminal revision petitions and misc. petitions.” The order therefore addressed the systemic practice rather than treating the instance as an isolated lapse.
Counsel for the petitioner was Mr. Deshraj Kalwania and Ms. Nikita Sharma. The State was represented by Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor, along with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant Government Advocate, and Mr. Sapan Soni.
Why Open Filing of Such Material Violates Article 21
The court traced the word privatus—the Latin root of “privacy”—to mean something private, secret, or personal, distinct from what is public. It then held that privacy and dignity under Article 21 are not separate rights but are constitutionally intertwined: “Privacy is its shield and dignity is its soul.”
The court identified the specific harm in the filing practice. Charge-sheets, petitions, and applications travel from the investigating agency to the court, passing through multiple hands. Any photograph or video annexed openly to such documents is therefore visible to an indeterminate number of persons. The court found there was every likelihood of such material being shared or uploaded on social media, which could ruin the victim's life and adversely affect her present or prospective marital life.
The court drew a clear line between the accused's right to rely on such photographs in his defence and the manner in which that reliance is exercised. The accused may use such material, but “no person can be permitted to place such material openly on record as evidence by attaching or annexing the same with the application, affidavit or memo of petition.” The court held that filing private or obscene photographs depicting moments between a man and a woman amounts to an indecent portrayal of the victim and constitutes an invasion of her privacy by exposing the material to the public at large.
The court also addressed the conduct of investigating officers. Production of such photographs or videos in open charge-sheets by the police results in disclosure of the victim's identity in the public domain. The accused, their counsel, investigating officers, and public prosecutors were all expected to act with utmost sensitivity in such matters.
The Supreme Court Precedent Applied
The court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Nipun Saxena and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703. Paragraphs 50.5 and 50.6 of that judgment require police officials to keep all documents disclosing the victim's name in a sealed cover, replacing them with identical documents from which the name is removed in all records that may be scrutinised in the public domain. All authorities to whom the victim's name is disclosed are duty-bound to keep her identity secret and not disclose it in any manner except in a report sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court.
The court directed that the eight-point protocol it was issuing was intended to give effect to those Supreme Court directions, and that the Registry was expected to apply its mind to the peculiarities of each case with the aim of scrupulously applying the Nipun Saxena directions.
The Eight-Point Protocol
The court set out the following mechanism, applicable to the Registry of the High Court and to trial courts across the State:
Scrutiny of filings. The Registry must carefully scrutinise all filings relating to sexual offences to ensure that the anonymity and confidentiality of the prosecutrix, victim, or survivor is strictly maintained. The name, parentage, address, social media credentials, and photographs of the victim must not be disclosed in filings, including in the memo of parties.
Cause lists. The Registry must ensure that identifying particulars of the victim do not appear in the cause list of the court in any manner.
Family members. The name, parentage, and address of family members of the victim—through whom the victim could be identified—must not be disclosed in filings, including in the memo of parties, even if those family members are accused in the case.
Access to files. Since complete redaction of identifying particulars from every document in the file may not be feasible, the files, paper-books, and e-portfolio of matters relating to sexual offences must not be provided to any person other than the parties to the litigation, the victim, and their respective counsel, after due verification of identity credentials.
Return of non-compliant filings. At the scrutiny stage, if the Registry finds that the victim's identity credentials are disclosed in the memo of parties or anywhere else in the filings, such filings must be returned to the counsel who filed them for requisite redactions before the filings are accepted.
Legal aid. The investigating officer must inform the prosecutrix or victim of her right to free legal aid and representation, in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (Crl) No. 362 of 1993).
Sealed cover or pass-code locked folder. If any party wishes to cite identifying particulars of the victim in court, including photographs or social media communications, such material may be brought to court in a sealed cover, or filed in a sealed cover, or in a pass-code locked electronic folder with the pass-code shared only with the concerned Court Master.
Non-exhaustive application. The foregoing directions are not intended to be exhaustive. The Registry is expected to apply its mind to the peculiarities of each case with the aim of scrupulously applying the Nipun Saxena directions.
Directions to the Registrar, Police, and State Authorities
The court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Chief Justice from the administrative side, for passing appropriate orders in the form of a Standing Order, Circular, Notification, or Practice Directions to the Registry of the trial courts and of the High Court, at both the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the Bench at Jaipur. The directions are to give effect to the suggestions at serial numbers (i) to (viii) of paragraph 12 of the order.
The Registrar General was directed to circulate a copy of the order to all judicial officers posted in different courts throughout the State of Rajasthan.
A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home; the Director General of Police; the Principal Law Secretary; and the Director of the Department of Prosecution. Each of these authorities was directed to inform all stakeholders and Station House Officers of all police stations in Rajasthan not to enclose or annex any obscene photographs or videos of any victim, girl, or woman openly in any court file or record. If such material is required to be submitted, it must be submitted only in sealed envelopes.
The court also observed that private moments between a couple should not be photographed or recorded at all, and that if any person captures or records such moments and produces them in the public domain to expose the other party, that person should be prosecuted strictly in accordance with law.
Outcome
On the bail petition itself, the court noted that the FSL analysis report of the video in the appended Pendrive had not been received as of the date of the order. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar was directed to send a letter to the Director, FSL to provide the FSL report expeditiously. The matter was listed after four weeks.