In re: Redaction of Child Identity in Judicial Orders (Bombay HC)
Bombay High Court2026 SCC OnLine Bom 334Bench: J. Revati Mohite Dere, J. Gauri Godse
The Bombay High Court held that the obligation under Section 23 POCSO and the guidelines in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) are absolute and apply to all persons — including courts and court registries — who publish, communicate, or make accessible any information that could lead to the identification of a child victim in a POCSO case. All POCSO judgments and orders uploaded to the HC website and the NJDG were directed to be reviewed within 3 months and redacted to replace the victim's name with "X" or "Minor Victim." The High Court Registrar (Judicial) was directed to frame a Standard Operating Procedure for automatic redaction of child identity before uploading POCSO orders. All subordinate courts were directed to follow the same procedure. The Court took note that Nipun Saxena had already directed all courts to replace the name of the victim with a pseudonym in all judicial records.