The Delhi High Court has refused to pause the streaming of Netflix documentary “To Kill a Tiger”, based on gang-rape of a 13-year-old girl. The court refused to pass any interim order on the PIL against the film over alleged “disclosure and non-masking of minor’s identity”, LiveLaw reported.

The documentary, which premiered in Canada in 2022, was released in India on March 10. Delhi-born Nisha Pahuja’s film was nominated in the best feature documentary category for the Oscars 2024. A cinematic documentary, “To Kill a Tiger” follows Ranjit’s uphill battle to find justice for his child, the official website of the film said.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to issue an ad-interim order at this stage regarding a PIL aimed at halting the film’s streaming. The PIL, filed by NGO Tulir Charitable Trust, alleges that the documentary violates the POCSO Act by not sufficiently protecting the minor’s identity.

The court has issued a notice in response to the plea and scheduled the next hearing for October 8.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the film was shot while the victim was still a minor and that consent was only obtained after she reached adulthood. The counsel further claimed that the documentary, filmed over three and a half years in India, failed to mask the rape survivor’s identity despite knowing her minor status.

The petition argued that the POCSO Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) prohibit revealing the identity of minor victims. The counsel described the consent obtained post-majority as akin to “Stockholm syndrome,” implying that the survivor could not have refused the filmmaker’s demands.

In response, the defendant argued that consent was given by the victim’s parents when she was a minor. They contended that the relevant laws only prevent the publication of a minor’s identity while they are still underage and do not extend this restriction after the individual reaches adulthood. They argued that once the individual reaches majority, she is entitled to discuss her experiences if she chooses to.

Following the hearing, the court decided not to issue an ad-interim order.