In Brief
A newspaper editor published a news report naming a 16-year-old sexual assault victim, violating the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The editor challenged the police investigation and court cognizance, arguing that Section 23 POCSO offence (identity disclosure) is non-cognizable, so police needed prior Magistrate permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. before investigating. The Supreme Court split 2-0 with no majority: Justice Banerjee upheld cognizance, holding Section 19 POCSO's non obstante clause permits police investigation without Magistrate permission. Justice Maheshwari agreed the appeal should be allowed, holding Section 23 is non-cognizable and Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. applies mandatorily. The case was referred to a larger bench.</summary_100>
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.