Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 228A: Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Printing or publishing the name, or anything that may reveal the identity, of a victim of rape or a related sexual offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to two years, and a fine.
- This does not apply to publication ordered in writing by the investigating police officer acting in good faith, or authorised in writing by the victim.
- If the victim is dead, a minor or of unsound mind, the next-of-kin can authorise it, but only to the head of a recognised welfare organisation.
- Publishing anything about court proceedings in such cases without the court's previous permission is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, and a fine.
- Publishing a judgment of a High Court or the Supreme Court is not an offence.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an [offence under section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E] is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or publication is—
(a) by or under the order in writing of the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation; or
(b) by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the victim; or
(c) where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next-of-kin of the victim:
Provided that no such authorisation shall be given by the next-of-kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation. (w.e.f. 3-2-2013).
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “recognised welfare institution or organisation” means a social welfare institution or organisation recognised in this behalf by the Central or State Government.
(3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section.]
State amendments to this section
Arunachal Pradesh Amendment of section 228A.—In section 228A of the Penal Code, in sub-section (1), for the words, figure and letters “offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D or section 376E” the words, figure and letters “offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AA, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or section 376E” shall be substituted. [Vide Arunachal Pradesh Act 3 of 2019, s. 4]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 228A
-
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking.
- Raja Halder v. State NCT of Delhi
- Mohit Pilania v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- People’S Union for Civil Liberties v. The State of
- Yashdeep Chahal v. Union of India & Ors
- Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Ms. X v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Abcd v. Union of India & Ors.
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Nipun Saxena & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Lalit Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh
- Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Ms.S v. Sunil Kumar & Anr.
- S. Ramakrishna v. The State Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad
- Premiya @ Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
- Om Prakash v. State of U.P.
- Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari
- State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh
- State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja
- Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Anr.
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab