In which of the following cases was it held that "identity of victim is not to be disclosed even in…

Dinesh alias Buddha declined to identify the sexual-offence victim and stated that her name should not appear in judgments of the Supreme Court, High Court or lower court. It distinguished this protective judicial practice from the express statutory exception concerning publication of High Court/Supreme Court judgments under IPC section 228A. The holding concerns protected sexual-offence victims, not an anonymity rule for every victim of every crime.

Current law: BNS section 72 now regulates identity disclosure for its listed sexual offences. Judicial anonymity protections remain relevant; the statutory treatment of judgment publication must be distinguished from permission to expose the victim unnecessarily.