Can't reveal name of father, kin details of sex-abused child: SC

NEW DELHI: A Kerala YouTube channel, which exposed the framing of a woman by her husband by tutoring their minor son to accuse her of sexually abusing the child, faced prosecution for showing photographs of the father that led to the child's identity and the locality where he lived being revealed.
Suraj Palakkaran, who runs 'True TV', moved SC and told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that the channel had not revealed the identity of the 10-year-old boy, but had shown the photograph of his father. It also cited Kerala HC order for a fresh probe into the case as the channel had showed how the boy was brainwashed to make allegations against his mother.
It said instead of proceeding against the boy's father, the cyber police of Thiruvananthapuram registered an FIR against the YouTube channel accusing it of violating Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act on the ground that the investigative report revealed the child's identity.
Section 23(2) provides: "No reports in any media shall disclose the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child. The publisher or owner of the media or studio or photographic facilities shall be jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of his employee." Contravention of the provisions would attract a punishment not less than six months imprisonment.

The bench stayed criminal proceedings against the channel on the consideration that "it had done a commendable job" in coming to the rescue of a beleaguered mother facing outrageous charges, but remained firm that every media entity must scrupulously adhere to the provisions of Pocso Act barring publication of anything that could lead to the identity of the child, who is allegedly sexually abused or assaulted, being revealed.
When the channel said though the name of the child was mentioned in the FIR, it had not reported it, the bench said, "When you publish the photograph of the father, people will automatically come to know about child's identity ." However, it stayed proceedings in the chargesheet filed against the channel by the cyber police station.