Taking strong exception to disclosure of identity of a nine-year-old girl from Himachal Pradesh in a rape case, the Supreme Court has directed all high courts to ensure that names of survivors and their family members are not mentioned in court orders.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh set aside the acquittal of an accused in a child sexual assault case under Section 376 IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and restoring the order of conviction passed by the trial court.“Clearly, the intent of this section has been given a miss in these proceedings. The name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms. In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed,” the Bench said in its March 24 verdict.Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prohibits the disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences, including rape, to prevent social stigma.In Nipun Saxena versus Union of India, the top court had in 22018 said, “No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large.”“This has been the long-standing position in law, but it has not been followed. The primary reason there amongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences,” the Bench said.The top court attributed THE lapses in following the ruling to a general indifference of the courts and “possibly even” the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences.Terming the disclosure of the rape survivor’s identity as a “disturbing fact”, the Bench directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all registrars general of high courts to ensure that in all matters dated prior to the judgment in the Nipun Saxena case and still pending, the mandate of Section 228-A IPC was strictly followed.The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act and awarded a 10-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the rape and a five-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under the SC/ST Act. The Himachal Pradesh High Court had reversed the conviction of the accused, saying courts must not give undue importance to minor discrepancies.However, the top court restored the conviction of accused Hukum Chand alias Monu and directed him to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of his sentence.