Why Was This Rape Victim’s Photo Published?

Think of a name, a name of someone you know. Now imagine you’re bored one evening and, just for the heck of it, you put that name in Google. What if that search served up the following headlines?

“Mumbai Physiotherapist Was First Strangled, Then Sodomised: Police”

“Mumbai: 25-year-old doctor strangled to death with a pair of jeans”

“Mumbai Crime: Physiotherapist raped, murdered in Vile Parle, body set on fire”

“Two men detained for murder of 25-year-old”

And when you, filled with morbid curiosity, click on the links, you find photographs of this person you know. There she stands, happily smiling and striking a pose, her face unblurred and clear for all to see. Perhaps the publication has captioned the photograph with a variation of “Photo courtesy: Facebook/username”, perhaps it didn’t even bother.

The headlines above are not fake and the articles under them do indeed have the photograph of a young woman who was raped, murdered and set ablaze. The first is from the news website The Quint; the second, from the fortnightly magazine India Today; the third is from the Mumbai-based tabloid Mid-Day; and the last is from the Mumbai Mirror. The first is a two-year-old online publication founded by Raghav Bahl, who also founded Network 18. The Mumbai Mirror is from The Times of India’s stable and has the sharply-insightful journalist and author Meenal Baghel as its Editor-in-Chief. Mid-Day is an immensely popular city publication, which has as its Executive Editor journalist Tinaz Nooshian. India Today has been around since 1975 and is something of an institution.

We have purposely not linked to the articles because The Quint, Mumbai Mirror and Mid-Day carried photographs (plucked out of Facebook) of the rape and murder victim. Aaj Tak, the Hindi arm of India Today, also carried a photograph and went with a headline that pointed out that the victim’s body had been “ardhanagn” (semi-nude) when it was discovered. Presumably that detail about her partial nudity helps instil grief in the average Aaj Tak reader. In addition to the young woman’s photograph, the Mumbai Mirror also had one of the grieving family.

Despite being run by seasoned journalists, it evidently didn’t strike anyone in The Quint, Aaj Tak, Mumbai Mirror and Mid-Day that by publishing the victim’s photograph, the Press Council of India Journalistic Conduct Norms were being flouted. The rules, as far as identifying victims of rape, are quite clear: they are to remain anonymous unless the victim or the next of kin authorises the use of their real name. As far as photographs are concerned, the rules are even clearer. Allow us to quote.

“While reporting crime involving rape, abduction or kidnap of women/females or sexual assault on children, or raising doubts and questions touching the chastity, personal character and privacy of women, the names, photographs of the victims or other particulars leading to their identity shall not be published.”

Are the Mumbai Mirror, The Quint, Mid-Day and Aaj Tak unaware that there are norms guiding journalism in India and that Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a rape victim punishable? Even if these legal details slipped their collective minds, you’d think that those in decision-making positions in these publications would have the sense and sensitivity to understand that invading a family’s privacy by publishing photographs of the victim — taken from Facebook, rather than officially released by the family to the media — is appalling and irresponsible. Apparently not. Instead of responsible reporting, what we’ve been served up is a spectacle that does its damnedest to feed the voyeuristic beast and sensationalise a crime that is horrific in its cruelty.

On December 6, news came in that a 25-year-old woman from Vile Parle in Mumbai had been sexually assaulted and murdered. From the fact that her body was charred and a pair of jeans were tied around her neck, it seemed she’d been strangled and then set on fire. The horrific tragedy was dubbed “physio killing” when the police discovered that the victim had been a physiotherapist. All major newspapers carried it, but did not name the victim.

It was after the post-mortem report came in that the victim’s name surfaced in media reports, presumably with her family’s permission. (Newslaundry has asked Mid-Day, Mumbai Mirror, and The Quint to confirm that the victim’s family has authorised them to use the victim’s name and photographs. This article will be updated with any responses we receive.) What was also revealed was the gruesome and sadistic ordeal this young woman suffered before she was killed. There were “ligature marks with finger nail scratches on the neck” that suggested she’d been strangled. She’d suffered a head wound. There were also “several injuries on her private parts and clear signs of sexual assault”, according to a doctor who spoke to The Times of India (this report does not mention the victim’s name). There was also an “acid burn mark” on her chest.

Aaj Tak published a photo of the victim and mentioned her name in its December 6 report. This article was translated into English and published in India Today too, but the English website did not use the photograph of the victim that Aaj Tak claimed was a “file photo”. This implies that Aaj Tak‘s photo library had the victim’s photograph, which is a questionable claim.

Mid-Day‘s article from December 7, on the post-mortem report, said that the victim has been identified by the police and her name was printed along with an uncredited photograph of hers. The same photograph, along with one of the grieving family, was published in the Mumbai Mirror. The Mid-Day story was the basis of The Quint‘s curated retelling, which includes numerous photographs that are credited to the victim’s Facebook account. The Quint followed this up with its own report, in which it spoke to the police, and again used photographs sourced from Facebook. When India Today republished wire copy from Press Trust of India on December 7, the victim remained unnamed.

There are no quotes from the victim’s family in any of these reports.

Mumbai’s media doesn’t have a particularly good track record as far as reporting rape is concerned. The coverage of the 2013 gangrape in Mumbai’s Shakti Mills, for instance, revealed a venality that was disgusting from all the major publications. Photographers climbed drainpipes and tried to break into the victim’s room. Reporters roamed around the victim’s neighbourhood to find out more about her. Some tried to bribe nurses to get details of the victim’s injuries and hounded the victim’s family. Photographs that revealed identifying details were published. Not a single publication apologised for its excesses. When The Times of India was roundly criticised for its coverage, columnist and former editor Bachi Karkaria decided to defend the newspaper’s honour:

“The card-carrying feminists of our fraternity have predictably been unimpressed by our efforts not to thrust victimhood on the girl. They’ve accused us of publishing giveaway details in our pursuit of saturation coverage. Also, by interview-ing neighbours and watchmen, they say, we have in fact exposed her identity to an inner circle — where it would hurt most. Admittedly, it’s a circle which could become concentric with salacious speed. … To bang on about protecting identity endorses the social assault on the raped woman, which, to me, is an under-documented form of gender violence.”  

Never mind whether the victim of the documented violence wishes her identity remain protected or otherwise because Karkaria and The Times of India know better.

The question of identifying a rape victim almost always brings up the question of victim-shaming, but there’s also the obvious fact that rape is traumatic. It takes time for people to recover. Suzette Jordan is one of the few rape survivors to have demanded her name be used. “Why should I hide my identity when it was not even my fault?” she asked, coming before the press. Keep in mind that she took this step more than a year after the Park Street rape of 2012. Keep in mind that she took this step — not her family, not the media.

Publishing this young woman’s Facebook photographs is a violation not simply because there are certain norms typed out in a PDF. Something private was taken from someone who didn’t have a chance to decide if they’d like to share it with the world at large because the media went to Facebook and made us of its dubious privacy policy.

Crimes thrust people who have suffered into the public gaze, particularly when the media picks it up. In cases of gender violence, however, it seems the Indian media is convinced that the only way to make a reader or viewer care is by feeding their voyeuristic side. It’s as though our journalists believe that the victims have given up their right to privacy and dignity when their ordeal is held up for investigation. What they’ve suffered is valuable only if it’s clickbait. This is a strange, twisted understanding of journalism because in an ideal world, the stories that the press pursues should actually empower the victim and return to them the agency that was taken from them by their violators.

Instead, we dangle before our audience snippets and details that serve to sensationalise a crime and highlight its graphic horror. We emphasise the suffering, but show little sensitivity towards the victim because our empathy is limited to how many eyeballs it attracts. Integrity, ethics, respect — it doesn’t matter what we give up in this quest to grab eyeballs.