2016 Minor Rape Victim Identity Case: Delhi Court Acquits Ex-DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue Court pronounced the verdict, bringing an end to the nearly nine-year-old criminal proceedings.

The case arose from a 2016 FIR accusing Maliwal of violating statutory provisions that safeguard the anonymity of sexual assault survivors. The prosecution alleged that on July 22, 2016, the DCW had issued a notice to the Station House Officer of Burari which mentioned the name of a 14-year-old girl, who had died after being sexually assaulted.

The Court, however, found no sufficient evidence to establish the offence and acquitted both accused.

It is to be noted that on February 13, the Delhi High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson seeking to quash an FIR registered against her in 2016.

On May 15, 2016, a day before a court hearing, the girl went missing. Her mother reported threats from the accused, leading to a missing person report and an FIR on May 19, 2016. The police recovered the girl on May 26, 2016, but she refused medical examination and was placed in a Children’s Home. On May 27, 2016, she recorded another Section 164 CrPC statement denying allegations but later, in a dying declaration to DCW coordinators, claimed police coercion. Due to health issues, she was returned home on May 31, 2016.

Her father took her to LNJP Hospital, where the police refused a medical examination. On June 30, 2016, LNJP Hospital had reported her history of sexual assault and symptoms of corrosive poisoning. A female officer took over, and the victim accused Shiv Shankar of kidnapping and rape. Additional charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO were filed, but no fresh investigation into poisoning occurred. On August 3, 2016, Maliwal had sought an independent SIT probe and victim compensation. During the petition’s pendency, a charge sheet was filed against her for allegedly revealing the victim’s identity. Maliwal defended her actions claiming it to be in good faith, but the High Court had found prima facie evidence under Sections 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act, requiring proof at a later stage.

“It is not under challenge that a Notice was issued to the SHO which got published on the WhatsApp Group of DCW by Sh. Bhupender Singh, Public Relations Officer, which later got it circulated to the News Channels wherein the name of the prosecutrix was disclosed. Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed”, the High Court had observed.