Collective grieving and anger over the merciless rape and murder of a young woman has turned into a remarkable phenomenon in Bengal. But it is as if the shock of the event were not enough. Social media posts describing her wounds, parts of her injured body, alleged details from the post-mortem report gathered most mysteriously and possibly embroidered upon with prurience, her picture and images of her after her passing and various other aspects of her person are being busily circulated. It is the ugliest violation of her privacy and that of her family, of her dignity and her personhood. Privacy is a fundamental right. It is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution enshrining the right to life and personal liberty. The preservation of dignity continues after death, according to a 1995 Supreme Court judgment. The doctor’s death did not turn her into an object for popular inspection; the attitude projected on social media and some media outlets is as violent an attack on her person as the crime. Besides, it is against the law to publicise the name and images of anyone subjected to sexual assault. Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prohibits this and details the penalties for anyone who prints or publishes the name or any information revealing a violated person’s identity. Further, would it be humane to describe in detail, repeatedly, the injuries of a victim of violence and circulate the images even when there is no sexual violation?

It seems that prolonging the shock of the doctor’s death provides an equally shocking but secretive enjoyment. The violence that lies below the surface in society rises in a dual expression: protest and reliving. This is one of the reasons why survivors of sexual violence hesitate to complain — passed away or living, their violated bodies and identities become objects of prurience in numerous imaginations. The dignity of the deceased is an elusive concept. In this case, the Supreme Court’s rebuke regarding the publication of the doctor’s identity has not stilled the circulation of damaging material. Is this a sign of the love — not hatred — for violence that society nurtures? The law should be used to stop the social media posts and media descriptions. But the damage has been done; can the police stop discussion?