The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against a journalist accused of disclosing the identity of a minor victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court granted relief after noting that the journalist’s reportage was aimed at exposing false allegations coerced against the child’s mother, and upon his undertaking to strictly adhere to the law in the future.
The Division Bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, allowed the appeal filed by Suraj V Sukumar @ Suraj Palakaran against the judgment of the Kerala High Court.
The case involved a journalist who faced charges under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act for allegedly disclosing the identity of a minor child while reporting on a sensitive case. The appellant had uploaded a news report on his YouTube channel claiming that a mother, accused of sexually exploiting her son, was innocent and that the allegations were fabricated by the child’s father. The Kerala High Court had declined to quash the proceedings, promoting the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Top Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the FIR, subject to the appellant furnishing an unconditional undertaking to comply with the law.
Background of the Case
The appellant, claiming to be a journalist, reported an incident where a mother was accused of sexually exploiting her minor son. In his report, the appellant asserted that the allegations were “totally false” and that the minor child had been “misled by the child’s father in making such wild allegations against his mother.”
While reporting this matter on his YouTube channel, the appellant displayed pictures of the child’s father and their relatives. This action allegedly led to the disclosure of the identity of the victim child, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 2/2021 at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, for offences under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act.
The appellant approached the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash the case. The High Court, vide its judgment dated September 9, 2024, in CRLMC No. 244/2023, declined the prayer.
Arguments and Observations
The Supreme Court noted a crucial factual aspect regarding the appellant’s intent. The Bench observed:
“What is pertinent to note here is that the voice raised by the appellant in favour of the mother of the victim child was eventually found to be truthful, and the allegations which the minor child was apparently coerced to make against his mother were found to be false.”
However, regarding the disclosure of identity, the Court acknowledged the legal gravity of the offence. The Bench remarked that “ordinarily, the view taken by the High Court, being the correct statement of law, ought to be affirmed,” stating further:
“There can be no exception that the disclosure of the identity of a child victim is no less serious than the original offence alleged in this case.”
The appellant submitted an affidavit explaining that he “neither disclosed the identity of the victim child nor ever intended to do so.” He further contended that the “indirect disclosure of the identity of the victim child did not lower the reputation of the child or his mother.”
While the Court noted that it was difficult to “conclusively accept or reject this assertion,” it decided to consider the “attending circumstances” and the appellant’s explanation.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 5131 of 2025, holding that the relief was granted “with a view to afford an opportunity to the appellant to reform himself and ensure that no such serious lapse takes place in future.”
The Court ordered the quashing of Crime No. 2/2021 and all emanating proceedings, subject to the following stringent conditions:
- Unconditional Undertaking: The appellant must furnish an unconditional undertaking by way of affidavits before the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, and the jurisdictional Sessions Judge within one week.
- Future Conduct: The undertaking must state that “in the future programs, he will not upload by himself or through associates any such incriminating material, and no such lapse will ever occur and that he shall meticulously follow the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act or other penal laws in this regard.”
- Consequences of Violation: The Court clarified that if the appellant fails to submit the undertaking or violates it in the future, “the proceedings in Crime No. 2/2021 shall stand automatically revived and the bail order, if any, passed in that case shall also then be deemed to have been cancelled.”
The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Suraj V Sukumar @ Suraj Palakaran vs State of Kerala
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5131 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5053 of 2025)
- Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
