Kerala High Court Quashes PoCSO Case Against Journalists: “Voice Was ‘Jumbled’, Identity Not Disclosed”; Warns Media Against One-Sided TRP-Driven Stories
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the prosecution initiated against six media personnel, including senior editorial and production staff of a leading news channel, in connection with the telecast of a news programme involving a minor survivor of a sexual offence. The court held that the alleged disclosure of the child’s identity under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was not substantiated, as the voice used in the broadcast was found to be altered and no visual or other identifiable information had been revealed. The court further directed that all proceedings before the trial court be quashed, noting that the statutory elements required to prosecute offences under the PoCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and Indian Penal Code were not made out.
The case originated from the telecast of a programme titled “Narcotics is a dirty business” aired by a private news channel on November 4, 2022, and subsequently uploaded to its YouTube channel on November 10, 2022. The programme, categorized as part of a “Roving Reporter” segment, included visuals and audio related to a minor who had previously been a victim in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (PoCSO) case. On March 4, 2023, a crime was registered by the Vellayil Police Station based on a complaint alleging that the programme had revealed the identity of the survivor and thereby violated Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act.
The prosecution alleged that six individuals involved in the conceptualization, planning, recording, editing, and broadcast of the programme had committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 419, 109, 471, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act. The accused included senior editorial personnel such as the Executive Editor, the Bureau Chief, and other production staff, including a cameraman and a supporting field team.
According to the final report, accused persons had held Zoom and WhatsApp meetings to conceptualize the programme with the intention of increasing the channel’s Television Rating Point (TRP) and boosting its public profile. The prosecution alleged that they intentionally used a minor child, impersonating the actual PoCSO survivor, in the video while retaining the original voice of the survivor recorded during an earlier interview on August 9, 2022. It was also alleged that the daughter of one of the accused was used in visuals to substitute the actual survivor, and that the accused intentionally deleted the original footage, recordings, and camera memory cards to suppress evidence.
The prosecution contended that the use of the original voice clip in the segment, even if visually altered, enabled the identification of the survivor by her parents, teachers, and others familiar with her voice. Statements of key witnesses, including the survivor (CW3), her parents (CW4 and CW5), and two of her teachers (CW6 and CW16), were relied upon to support this claim.
The survivor’s earlier interview on August 9, 2022, had reportedly been recorded with her consent and that of her parents and had been telecast by multiple news outlets, including Media One, Prime 21, and Kannur Vision. The accused contended that the voice was edited or “doctored” in the subsequent programme and did not retain the original audio in its unaltered form.
The defence submitted that the content was produced and broadcast as part of a larger public-interest story aimed at raising awareness about drug abuse in Kerala, citing data from the Kerala Government’s Open Data portal regarding a substantial rise in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases from 2019 to 2022. It was further asserted that the survivor’s identity had been concealed using visual editing techniques, voice modulation, and multiple disclaimers throughout the programme, and that the story did not include the child’s name, address, school, or any visual features capable of identifying her.
The defence highlighted the presence of disclaimers in the programme explicitly stating that both the voice and visuals had been modified to protect the child’s identity. They also drew the court’s attention to the fact that other media outlets had used unaltered visuals and audio from the original interview but were not subjected to similar criminal proceedings.
The prosecution, in response, maintained that the use of the original voice recording—even if edited—was sufficient to constitute a disclosure under Section 23(2) of the PoCSO Act, which prohibits the release of any particulars that could lead to the identification of a child victim. They further argued that the child used in the video impersonation was a minor, thereby constituting an offence under Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act for allegedly using a child for an unlawful activity.
The matter was brought before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to quash the final report and all connected proceedings, asserting that no offence had been made out against the accused and that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process.
The court considered whether the allegations, even if accepted in full, made out any prima facie offence under the provisions cited in the final report. In particular, it examined whether the use of a child’s voice, albeit altered, constituted a disclosure of identity under Section 23(2) of the PoCSO Act.
The Bench first addressed the applicability of Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act. It stated, “When reading Section 23(2), name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood etc., not disclosed even as per the prosecution case.” However, it acknowledged the prosecution’s claim that the original voice of the survivor was used. The court stated, “If so, survivor’s identity could be noticed by somebody having familiarity with her voice would come within the purview under the caption ‘any other particulars’ which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child dealt under Section 23(2) of the PoCSO Act.”
Upon examining the survivor’s own statement (CW3), the court recorded, “In the statement, she stated in the video Roving Report, she was not shown and she did not give any interview in connection with the said video. She also stated that the uniform worn by the girl appeared in the video is not that of her school. Her further statement is that, the voice in the video is that of herself, but the voice is not used as such, but ‘sentences are jumbled’.” The court observed that this contradicted the prosecution’s claim that the voice was used in its original form.
On this basis, the court noted: “This would go to show that the contention of the petitioners that they did not use the voice of the survivor in its original form, but in a doctored form is justified by the survivor’s statement itself.”
The Bench examined the forensic voice analysis report mentioned in column No.15 of the final report and noted, “the report also does not say that voice is similar. The rationale is because of its use by jumbling the sentences.”
The video submitted by the petitioners was reviewed by the court. “In fact, the sound used in the original video was declared as doctored in the interview itself. The allegation in the present crime is use of the voice of the survivor less than 11 seconds in the 20 minutes programme... On viewing the programme, I would say the same as beneficial video which is intended to alert the public regarding availability of drugs even in the near vicinity of Police Stations and Excise Offices.”
The court added, “On hearing the voice alleged to be that of the survivor, the voice are different [from] the original video recorded on 9.8.2022 and the disputed one in this case.” Accordingly, it stated: “So, on viewing the video also, it could not be held that the channel had any intention to disclose the identity of the survivor or disclosed the identity of the survivor by using her original voice, as such.”
The Bench further explained: “When the survivor herself says the voice used was by jumbling sentences, the same is akin to doctoring the voice so as to hide the identity of the voice. If so, it could not be held that the voice, as such, is used by the accused and the voice is doctored in order to avoid disclosure of identity of the survivor and if so, offence under Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act could not be found prima facie.”
Turning to the IPC offences, the court examined the charge of forgery under Section 465 IPC and concluded: “In the instant case, the intention of the channel is not to cause any injury to any public or to the survivor, in any manner and the intention is so vivid to the effect that it was intended to alert the public regarding increase in drug abuse among youngsters in Kerala.”
On this basis, the court held: “The fundamental ingredient to constitute the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC, could not be prima facie found.” The consequential offences under Sections 471 and 109 IPC were also held to be unsustainable. “The learned Special Public Prosecutor also is not able to justify how offence under Section 419 of the IPC would attract in the facts of this case.”
With respect to the Juvenile Justice Act, the court recorded: “A news channel has the liberty to telecast feature programmes and the same unless found to be patently illegal, Section 83(2) of the JJ Act would not have any application.” It concluded: “It could not be held that the said purpose is illegal. If so, offence under Section 83(2) also would not attract in the facts of this case.”
In a cautionary note to media, the court observed:
“It is true that medias and news channels are considered as the fourth pillar of democracy by guaranteeing freedom of the press. But, it is noticeable that in order to increase TRP, as part of survival strategy, now some channels and medias are engaged in publishing and telecasting variety modes of news and entertainments touching social, economic and subjects of cultural events in the society.”
“In this endevour, mere allegations also being published, telecasted and circulated without having further investigation or enquiry with regard to the truth of the allegations and even without getting the words of the aggrieved or the person who is affected by the news, whose image being tarnished by the said news, which may be false.”
“The moral and elementary principles of journalism rather the legal principle of natural justice warrant to get versions of both sides and publish or telecast both versions... Therefore, it is high time for the channels and medias to be more vigilant while giving news items in channels and medias in any form to have an enquiry with regard to the truth of the matter or to include the version of the other side...”
The High Court allowed the petition, issuing the following directions:
“Summing up the discussion, this petition succeeds. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Annexure F Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.575/2024 on the files of the Special Court for trial of offences under the PoCSO Act, Kozhikode, against the petitioners herein, stand quashed.”
The court held that the essential ingredients to attract the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and the Indian Penal Code were not present in the materials placed on record. It found that the voice of the survivor used in the impugned programme had been altered sufficiently to avoid any disclosure of identity, and no other identifying information had been presented through visuals or narration. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no evidence of intention to injure, defame, or misrepresent the survivor or the public, as required under relevant provisions of the IPC concerning forgery and conspiracy.
As a result, all criminal proceedings before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court for PoCSO offences), Kozhikode, were quashed in their entirety with respect to all six accused individuals.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: B. Raman Pillai (Sr.), V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, V. John Sebastian Ralph, Victor George V.M., Preeja P. Vijayan, Smitha (Ezhupunna), Pavan Rose Johnson, Vandana Bhat T.V.
For the Respondents: Shri P. Narayanan, Special Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor to Director General of Prosecution; Shri Sajju S., Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX & Others v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30672
Case Number: CRL.M.C. No. 9008 of 2024
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
[Read/Download order]
