The Kerala High Court on Monday restrained the police from taking coercive action against former Director General of Police (DGP) and Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillor R Sreelekha, who has been booked for allegedly disclosing the identities of survivors in three sexual assault cases.

Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the interim order while considering a petition filed by Sreelekha seeking to quash the FIR registered against her. The court directed the investigating officer to refrain from taking any coercive action against her until the disposal of the case.

The Museum Police had registered the case based on a Magistrate's order under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging that Sreelekha disclosed the identities of survivors in three cases through her YouTube channel and blog.

"There will be a direction to the Investigating Officer to desist from taking any coercive action against the petitioner/accused until the disposal of this case," the court said.

Sreelekha is the sole accused in the case, which has been registered under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the disclosure of the identity of victims of certain offences, and Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which regulates the publication of information relating to child victims.

According to her petition, a social worker had filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's Court alleging that she revealed the identities of survivors through her YouTube channel, Sasneham Sreelekha, and her blog. Acting on the complaint, the Magistrate forwarded the matter to the Museum Police under Section 175 of the BNSS without issuing her a notice, following which an FIR was registered.

Challenging the Magistrate's order, Sreelekha contended that it was passed without giving her an opportunity to be heard, as required by law. She has sought to quash the FIR, and has also arrayed the complainant as a respondent in the petition.

The petition further questions the Magistrate's jurisdiction to take cognisance of offences under the POCSO Act. It argues that Section 72 of the BNS does not prohibit the disclosure of the identity of a murder victim and points out that the victim in the Kuruppampady case was a murder victim. The petition also contends that the FIR is legally unsustainable as it does not disclose any prosecutable offence warranting investigation.

In a detailed Facebook post published earlier, Sreelekha argued that the case against her is legally untenable. She said the POCSO Act came into force only in 2013, whereas the Kiliroor and Kaviyoor cases date back to 2004. Since laws cannot be applied retrospectively, she argued, the POCSO provisions cannot be invoked in those cases.

She further maintained that the victim in the Kuruppampady case referred to in her 2016 blog post was not a minor. Likewise, she argued that the victim in the Kiliroor case discussed on her YouTube channel in August 2022 was also not a child, making Section 23 of the POCSO Act inapplicable.

Sreelekha also contended 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 applicable provision would have been Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises the disclosure of the identity of rape survivors but does not extend to murder cases.

(With LiveLaw inputs)