Here is the full text of MEENAKSHI LEKHIs response to National Commission for Women and it is addressed to Ms Shamina Shafiq, Member, NCW. December 1, 2013 To Ms Shamina Shafiq Member National Commission For Women DeenDayal Upadhyaya Marg New Delhi-110002. SUBJECT:NOTICE DATED 30.11.2013 FILE NUMBER:8/4(159)PM/2013-NCW Dear Shamina Shafiqji I received by mail your notice dated November 30, 2013 and as required am replying “within 24 hours”. Please refer to Section 228A of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (referred to hereafter as “the IPC” ) The said section deals, as the heading of the section suggests, with “disclosure of the identity of the victim of certain offences”. The section makes “printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of a person against whom an offence” under section 376 IPC and related offences an offence. The section is intended to prevent victimization or ostracism of the victim. I am well versed in the subject and sensitive to the issue not to realise the sanctity of secrecy or the necessity to protect the identity of a rape victim to be involved in any crude attempt reveal the same. I have not disclosed the name or identity of the victim. No disclosure can be attributed to me as what has been “printed and published” cannot be imputed to me. The condition precedent for attracting Section 228A IPC is not satisfied. The suggestion of my changing track over conversations is denied and regret was expressed only because the handle and instrument was misused. In any event, the tweet does not make known nor lay bare nor even remove from secrecy or ignorance the person to protect whose interest you have intervened as to satisfy the requirement of “disclosure” mandated by the section. May I mention the fact that the identity of the victim was in public domain even before the tweet and no action was taken by NCW with regard to the same.I do not for a moment suggest that action be not taken where warranted but I feel failure to take action in every case where action is warranted gives reason to believe that the decision to act or not is being guided by considerations extraneous to the purpose for which the Act is enacted and the Commission is constituted. I only mention the cases of Mr Shinde and that of Alka Lamba and Tarun Gogoi where in clearer and graver circumstances no action whatsoever was taken. The article you referred to in your notice requiring my reply, in its tenor and content, makes an imputation which in fact attracts the penal provision on which you rely by reading the tweet with other information not contained in or supplied by the tweet but possessed by the reporter through sources the reporter has to explain as to suggest a meaning to the tweet and attribute the meaning assumed by the reporter as one conveyed by the tweet. The content of the article is clearly meant to discredit me rather than raise the issue of protection of a victim. The taking of a photo-grab coupled with the prior hacking of my Google Account clearly suggests that the object of the exercise is not to protect interest of a victim but create an occasion to slander me. Earlier a fake Twitter Account was also created. The intent is therefore obvious in this pattern of behaviour which seems motivated towards causing me embarrassment and annoyance. May I nevertheless state that the expression “name” (as used in Section 228A) requires distinctive characterization or specific designation of an individual person by which one is known and distinguished from others – a test which is clearly not satisfied in the instant case. Moreover “matter” making known the “identity” must be such as to require that the person allegedly represented is the same as the person for whose benefit the law is enacted and no person of average intelligence and ordinary understanding can conceivably identify the individual from the tweet. The very circumstances of the case suggest that the law has been invoked to malign me and create controversy without regard to the victim whose interest is sought to be protected. The object for which the section is enacted is not attracted to the case. The tweet was admittedly removed immediately and the circulation of news about a removed tweet has persisted longer than the tweet in question repeatedly attracting attention to an issue which has been kept alive not by the tweet but by news about it. This itself suggests a politically motivated campaign where protection of identity is only a ruse to malign me. In fact the photo-shot is being re-circulated with abandon which itself is impermissible and obviously not attributed to me. I was given “24 hours” to reply. I was surprised at specification of the period but considering that initiative has been taken by the Commission with which I have worked and whose jurisdiction and involvement is vital to issues concerning women I am complying with the mandate and immediately responding. MEENAKASHI LEKHI
Posted on: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:01:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015