Delhi High Court asks rape survivor to respond after plea alleges Oscar-nominated film revealed her identity

The Delhi High Court has allowed a sexual assault survivor and her father to file their response to a plea seeking action against filmmaker Nisha Pahuja and streaming service Netflix for allegedly revealing the minor’s identity in a documentary film in violation of legal provisions.

Set in a Jharkhand village, “To Kill A Tiger” follows the journey of a man battling 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, 2024.

The survivor and his father sought to be impleaded as parties to the petition. Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed their plea and said, “The newly-impleaded respondents are permitted to file their counter-affidavits within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.”

The court also allowed the petitioner to file additional documents, including a sealed cover containing “sensitive images” of the minor survivor and her family members from the documentary that was telecast on Netflix.

The next hearing in the matter is on January 7.

The court had earlier issued a notice to the Centre as well as Pahuja, a filmmaker based in Canada’s Toronto, and the streaming platform on a petition filed by Tulir Charitable Trust, and directed them to file their replies.

Senior advocate Karuna Nandy represented Pahuja in the court.

The bench had previously refused to stay the streaming of the film, observing that it was available to the public since March.

According to the petitioner, the film has revealed the identity of the rape survivor, who was a minor at the time of the incident, as it has not concealed her face.

“The film was shot for three-and-a-half years. She (Pahuja) made no attempt to mask the minor’s identity. There are around 1,000 hours of filmmaking. The poor girl was asked to repeat (her ordeal). All parts are in knowledge of respondent 5 Netflix,” the petitioner’s counsel argued.

The lawyer said the documentary “panders to international taste” and has violated the provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and laws governing the protection of the identity of minor rape survivors.

One of the respondents, however, countered the petitioner’s arguments and said the film was shot with the permission of the minor’s parents and released after she had turned major with her consent.

“Once the child is a major, she has the ability to talk about what happened to her if she so chooses,” the lawyer argued.