The Kolkata rape and murder case has rapidly escalated into a major crisis, involving allegations against high-level executives and politicians. The situation has become even more chaotic as thousands have resorted to rioting, attacking evidence rooms and hospital facilities in an apparent effort to obliterate crucial evidence. The public outcry has been amplified on social media, with many people expressing their views and concerns about the case.
One notable response came from Dhruv Rathee, a well-known figure on social media. He posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, using the hashtag #JusticeForNirbhaya2. However, the post was swiftly deleted, leading to speculation and criticism. Observers noted that Raathe's decision to remove the post might have been influenced by pressure from the ruling TMC government in West Bengal, given the sensitive nature of the case and the political implications. This led to a wave of trolling and criticism directed at Raathe.
In response to the backlash, Rathee explained his actions by acknowledging that comparing this case to the Nirbhaya case was inappropriate and insensitive. He stated that his followers had provided feedback, pointing out the problematic nature of labeling the victim as "Nirbhaya 2." Despite this attempt to rectify his mistake, Rather found himself in deeper controversy. In another post discussing the case, he disclosed the victim's name, which sparked outrage among netizens. The disclosure of a rape victim's identity is not only illegal but also considered highly unethical and insensitive.
Because some people pointed out that it was insensitive to call (name hidden) as Nirbhaya 2. I thought over it and felt that they were right.
Dhruv Rathee
Advocate Prashant Umrao brought attention to this legal breach through a tweet. He emphasized that in rape cases where the victim is deceased or of unsound mind, the victim's identity must not be revealed. The Supreme Court of India has issued strict guidelines on this matter, making it clear that disclosing a rape victim’s identity is illegal, even with the authorization of the victim’s family.
When the rape victim is dead or of unsound mind, the name of the victim or her identity should not be disclosed even under the authorization of the next of kin. - #SupremeCourt
Advocate Prashant Umrao
This incident has ignited a broader conversation about the role and responsibilities of public figures and influencers in shaping public discourse on social media. It highlights the immense influence these individuals wield over public opinion and the importance of exercising sensitivity and discretion in their communications.
The Kolkata case serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the respect for legal and ethical boundaries.
(Input from various source)
(Rehash/Yash Kamble/MSM)
