New Delhi. The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s stand on a plea seeking action against filmmaker Nisha Pahuja and Netflix for allegedly violating the law by revealing the identity of a minor gangrape victim in a documentary. Set in a village in Jharkhand, ‘To Kill a Tiger’ narrates the ordeal of a man who fights for justice for his 13-year-old daughter who was sexually assaulted by three men.
The film was nominated in the ‘Best Documentary Feature’ category at the 96th Academy Awards this year. A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan issued notice to the Centre as well as Emmy Award-nominated filmmaker Pahuja and the OTT platform streaming the film on the petition filed by ‘Tulir Charitable Trust’. The bench also comprised Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The bench refused to ban streaming of the film in its current form at this stage, noting that it has been available to the public here since March.
The petitioner alleged that the film exposed the identity of the rape victim, who was 13 years old at the time of the incident, as her face was not ‘hidden’ and she was even shown in her school uniform. “The shooting of the film went on for three and a half years. He (Pahuja) made no attempt to hide the identity of the minor. Nearly 1,000 hours went into the filmmaking. The poor girl was asked to repeat (her ordeal). All the parts are in the knowledge of respondent no. 5 Netflix,” the petitioner’s counsel said.
He alleged that the rape victim could not refuse to give consent to publish her identity after attaining majority because there was “a kind of Stockholm syndrome”. At this stage, the victim often gets emotionally attached to the person who tortured her. He said that this documentary is “in line with international taste” and violates the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and other legal provisions related to the protection of identity of minor rape victims. The counsel for the Centre sought time to obtain instructions on the petition. The counsel for one of the private respondents said that the film was shot with the permission of the parents of the minor girl and was released after she attained majority and with her consent.
The lawyer argued, “Once the girl becomes an adult, she can talk about the incident if she wants to.” He said that if the petitioner’s case is accepted, then no book or film can ever be made on such an incident, which was not even the intention of Parliament when it made laws on the protection of the identity of minor rape victims.
He said that the documentary was first released in Canada in 2022 and in India in March this year. The next hearing of the case will be on October 8.