Gujarat High Court refuses to quash FIR against lawyer accused of revealing minor’s identity

The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman lawyer accused of disclosing the identity of a minor victim in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, calling out the advocate for a ‘cheap publicity’ stunt.

Justice Nizar S Desai criticised the petitioner’s conduct, calling it “extreme irresponsibility both from a professional and human perspective”. 

He observed, “When a professional crosses the legal boundaries merely for cheap publicity, can such an act be excused as an unintentional mistake?”

Investigation to continue

Rejecting the plea to halt the probe, the court said the lawyer’s professional status offered no immunity. “The petitioner is a woman lawyer, and despite being a woman, she failed to protect the dignity, privacy, and honour of the minor victim under the POCSO Act,” Justice Desai noted. “Prima facie, it appears that instead of prioritising the interests of the minor victim, she chose her own professional interests and publicity.”

The judge added that advocates are expected to know the law “both in letter and spirit” and should not “chase cheap publicity by giving media soundbites”.

Allegations of on-camera disclosure

According to the court, the petitioner not only disclosed the minor’s name on social media but also encouraged the child to give a media statement while in her presence. Justice Desai said this warranted a thorough investigation because the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts make it mandatory to protect the identity of victims, with internal mechanisms provided by law for that purpose.

Prima facie case made out

The court emphasised that whether the act was intentional or a mistake would be determined during investigation or trial. However, a prima facie reading of the FIR showed that the ingredients of the alleged offence were evident.

Background of the case

The lawyer, who has practised for about six years, represented the minor in July 2025 in a case linked to the suicide of the accused in a POCSO matter. Later, the petitioner, the victim, and the victim’s mother spoke to the media. A case was subsequently registered against the lawyer under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Concluding the order, the High Court underscored that the question was not about forgiving a mistake but about whether “crossing the legal boundary merely for cheap publicity” could be considered an “unintentional mistake”.