Sexual Harassment is a widespread issue, on that violates the bodily autonomy of women as well as their fundamental rights. It is highly stigmatized in society and can often have serious consequences for both the victim and the accused. Victims of sexual harassment often end up with a damaged reputation along with experiencing psychological, emotion and physical harm.

The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement acknowledged the need to maintain strict confidentiality in cases related to rape and sexual offences *1. The court emphasized that Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of a victim without explicit permission from a competent authority, even if authorized by the victim’s next of kin.
To further protect the victim’s privacy, the Court reaffirmed that in-camera proceedings under Section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, are mandatory in cases involving sexual offences. These proceedings allow only the presiding judge, court staff, legal representatives, the accused, the public prosecutor, and the victim (if they are willing) to be present, ensuring limited access to sensitive information.

POSH ACT 2013
When it comes to the PoSH act, Section 16 of the act prohibits publication or making known contents of complaint and inquiry proceedings. It mandates confidentiality in terms of proceedings, the identity of the victim and the details of the incident.
In Thomas Antony v State of Kerala*2 , the court while hearing the petition, noticed that at present there is no mechanism to anonymize the complainant, who alleges that she faced sexual harassment. They contended that when the right to privacy is recognized as one of the important facets of the fundamental rights of a person, a complainant who raises such a grievance is also entitled to ensure that her whereabouts are anonymized from the public domain. That said, this should be done in such a manner not prejudicial to the rights of the employee against whom the complaint is made, while he defends the enquiry. For this purpose, they directed the first respondent to formulate the necessary guidelines within a period of four months.
They also mentioned that the Bombay HC issued certain guidelines in P v. A & Ors*3. And though the said guidelines were framed mainly to ensure the privacy of the victim under the POSH Act during the court proceedings. P v. A &Others involved issues under the PoSH Act and the judge contended that it is important to protect the identities of the parties from disclosure in these proceedings. This was in the interest of both the parties and there appeared to be no established guidelines so far in such matters. The order laid down a working protocol for future orders, hearings and case file management, making it one of the first endeavor’s in that direction. He stated that these were only initial guidelines, and will necessarily be subject to revision or modification as needed. He stated that these guidelines are the minimum that is required.
The seven-page order issued by Justice G.S. Patel relates to ensuring the confidentiality of the parties in respect of the manner in which such cases should be heard and handled by the courts. Although it was later clarified that these guidelines were not general but rather specific to the one case at hand, they were definitely a step towards guaranteeing anonymity to the victim as well as the accused in PoSH related cases.

REFERENCES:
1. Nigun Saxena v Union of India (AIRONLINE 2018 SC 826)
2. Thomas Antony v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC Online Ker 1762
3. P v A & Ors, Suit no 142 of 2021, Bombay HC, decided on 24
September 2021.

Written and submitted by:
Siya Chaudhary
Student at BITS-Mumbai
Intern at Praman Legal