In Nepal, the right to privacy for victims of crimes such as rape, human trafficking, and sexual assault is not just a legal formality rather a fundamental shield meant to protect dignity, restore
agency, and prevent re-victimization. The law acknowledges that it’s not enough for a victim to survive the crime; they must also be spared from surviving the shame society imposes on them afterward.
Yet, despite this progressive intention, a flaw persists in the execution. The most glaring of them all? The courts, investigators, and media often believe that masking the victim’s name is enough.
But if the address, names of parents, relatives, or other identifying markers are still revealed, the very purpose of privacy collapses. It further substantiates the public humiliation for victims, especially women, in a society already primed to judge them harshly.
Societal Mindset: The Root of the Problem
Before diving into legal flaws, it is crucial to acknowledge the toxic soil in which this law is germinated. Nepali society is still deeply patriarchal. When a case of rape or sexual assault breaks out, what’s the first reaction on social media? Blame the woman. With every other Facebook or TikTok comment section, countless remarks are asking what she was wearing, what time she was out, or why she didn’t speak up sooner.
What’s even more tragic is that this judgment doesn’t come only from men. Women, raised in the same societal structures, often echo these toxic beliefs. They have internalized the misogyny to
the point that blaming fellow women feels normal, even justified.
In such an environment, the legal provision of anonymity is not just about privacy, it’s about protection from social character assassination. The logic is clear: even if the law recognizes you as a victim, society will still treat you as guilty. This societal lens validates the provision of the
law to keep the identity of victims hidden. But does it succeed?
The Law on Paper Vs the Law in Action
The Crime Victim Protection Act, 2075 (2018), Section 6, grants specific privacy rights during investigation, inquiry, prosecution, and court proceedings. It lists offences like rape, incest, human trafficking, and sexual harassment. The law explicitly states that no one may disclose the identity of the victim. It even allows for practical mechanisms to protect this identity: voice distortion, use of audio-visual technology, shielding from the accused, etc.
The law looks sufficient and reality-centric unless we surf the judgments of the court referring to victims as “Miss A” or some pseudonym, but proceed to casually mention the municipality, district, parents’ names, or even school. What’s the point of changing the name if everything else
screams the person’s real identity?
This gap between the spirit of the law and its execution is where the problem matures. Legal formalism—a tendency to follow rules robotically without understanding their context is killing
the very soul of victim protection.
The Legal Loophole: Identity by Association
Here lies the crux of the loophole: the law prohibits revealing the identity of the victim, but does not define clearly what constitutes “identity.” Is it just the name? Or does it also include contextual clues- location, family details, profession, age, that make it easy to trace the person?
Courts have mostly taken the narrow route: conceal the name, and the matter is resolved. But identity isn’t just a label; it’s a complex set of identifiers. When any of these get revealed, especially in small towns or rural areas, privacy is shattered.
This limited interpretation has created a dangerous loophole, enabling the protection to exist on paper but fail in practice. In reality, most people can still deduce who the victim is, and that’s
enough to start the cycle of shaming, bullying, and even exclusion from schools, workplaces, and communities.
Victims Are Not Alone- Their Families Are Victimized Too
One element the law misses entirely is the emotional and social fallout on the families of the victims. Once the identity is indirectly disclosed, the victim’s family members- siblings, parents, relatives become the next targets of gossip and discrimination.
Schools have asked children to drop out quietly. Families have been denied housing. Marriage proposals have vanished. The stigma sticks, not just to the victim but to everyone around her. This ripple effect is rarely acknowledged in courtrooms or police stations.
Thus, protection of privacy should be expanded in its definition: it must include all those identifiers, direct and indirect, that could trace back to the victim.
Media’s Role in Breaking or Building Privacy
In this contemporary world of digital connectivity and information sharing, the line between public interest and personal privacy has become increasingly blurred. While many news organizations have become more careful in naming victims, they still frequently commit the same mistakes- sharing video reports from the scene, naming the ward or community, even interviewing neighbors who spill the beans.
Even when names aren’t revealed, the “contextual identification” in these stories can do equal damage. Ethical journalism must rise above clickbait and understand that in cases of sexual violence, even one extra detail can ruin a life.
What Needs to Change?
The intent of Section 6 of the Crime Victim Protection Act is commendable. But intention without thoughtful implementation is like a locked door with the key hanging right beside it.
To implement the very provision in the same intention, the following should be considered:
Integrate Privacy in Victim Counseling and Legal Aid
Broaden the Definition of ‘’Identity”
The law must be amended to include location, familial details, workplace, and other identifying factors under the scope of “identity.” A victim should not be traceable by association.
Issue Strict and Judicial Guidelines
The Supreme Court or Judicial Council should issue mandatory guidelines for how to write judgments or decisions in sensitive cases. Judges must be trained to understand the nuances of re-victimization through indirect disclosures.
Establish Accountability for Leaks
Whether it’s from police, lawyers, courts, or journalists, any leakage of victim-related details must be investigated and penalized. Without consequences, the culture of casual leaks will persist.
Integrate Privacy in Victim Counseling and Legal Aid
Victims and their families should be educated about their privacy rights from the beginning.
Legal aid clinics and victim support units must be tasked to monitor how well privacy provisions
are implemented.
Regulate Media Practices
The Press Council and media houses must jointly frame guidelines that prevent indirect disclosure. Training in ethical reporting is not a luxury- it’s a necessity.
The Bottom Line
The right to privacy isn’t a mere checkbox in our justice system; it’s meant to be a sanctuary. But unless we uphold it with unwavering seriousness and human empathy, it will continue to fail like a torn umbrella in a storm of stigma, exposing victims. And maybe that’s the real tragedy- not that the system is blind, but it chooses to look away. Our laws must evolve to see victims not just as cases, but as real peoplewith real lives- lives that can be shattered or saved depending on how we choose to implement their right to privacy.
(The author studies BA LLB at Kathmandu School of Law)
Comment