Sreelekha alleges procedural lapses in POCSO case filed by Museum police against her
Sreelekha denies the charges, arguing that the laws cited (POCSO Act and BNS) cannot be applied retrospectively to incidents that occurred before their enactment or to victims who were not minors at the time.
Sreelekha denies the charges, arguing that the laws cited (POCSO Act and BNS) cannot be applied retrospectively to incidents that occurred before their enactment or to victims who were not minors at the time.
Sreelekha denies the charges, arguing that the laws cited (POCSO Act and BNS) cannot be applied retrospectively to incidents that occurred before their enactment or to victims who were not minors at the time.
Thiruvananthapuram: Former IPS officer and Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillor R Sreelekha has strongly denied the allegations against her after the Museum Police registered a case accusing her of revealing the identity of minor rape survivors through her YouTube channel, Sasneham Sreelekha.
The police booked her under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which prohibits publishing material that could disclose the identity of victims of sexual offences. According to the FIR, episodes uploaded in August 2022 and March 2024 referred to the Kiliroor and Kaviyoor sexual assault cases and allegedly revealed details, including parents’ names, that could lead to identification of the victims.
In a detailed response posted on Facebook, Sreelekha argued that the case registered against her is legally untenable. She pointed out that the POCSO Act came into force only in 2013, while the Kiliroor and Kaviyoor incidents date back to 2004. A law cannot be applied retrospectively, she said, and therefore POCSO provisions cannot be invoked in these cases.
She also maintained that in the 2016 blog post cited by the police, the victim in Kuruppampady case was not a minor. Similarly, she said the victim in the Kilirur case discussed on her YouTube channel in August 2022 was not a child, and hence Section 23 of the POCSO Act does not apply.
She further argued that Section 72 of the BNS, which came into force only in June 2024, cannot be applied to content published in 2016 and 2022. According to her, the corresponding IPC provision is Section 228A, which penalises disclosure of the identity of rape survivors but does not extend to murder cases.
As per the Supreme Court judgment in Nipun Saxena vs Union of India (2019) and the Supreme Court’s orders in the RG Kar Medical College case (2024), disclosure of the victim’s identity has been strictly prohibited in such cases after 2019, even after the victim’s death. The Ministry of Home Affairs, through order No 24013/08/2015-SC/ST W dated January 16, 2019, issued directions to states in this regard. It was only thereafter that disclosure of the names of victims in sexual offence cases was prohibited even posthumously, and later incorporated as a statutory provision in the BNS, the post said.
Sreelekha also questioned the delay in filing the case. The complaint involves alleged offences between May 2016 and October 2025, but the first complaint was filed only in October 2025, she said, asking why no explanation was given for the delay.
The former IPS officer also questioned why POCSO sections were added by the Station House Officer when the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the court order mentioned only BNS Section 72. She alleged that the addition may have been because BNS offences are bailable while POCSO offences are non-bailable, and claimed the law was being used to create maximum reputational damage.
Sreelekha said she had already made some videos on her Sasneham Sreelekha channel private earlier after they caused discomfort to some viewers, particularly when she decided to contest local body elections and some content was used against her. She asserted that she had committed no legal wrongdoing and would restore the videos. The investigation into the case is underway.