New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that media organisations, despite being private entities, can be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when they violate an individual’s fundamental right to privacy.
Upholding a 2013 single-judge verdict against TV Today Network over the alleged disclosure of a child sexual abuse survivor’s identity, the court said the press performs a public function, owes a duty to protect victims’ dignity, and can be held accountable for breaching that obligation.
The ruling came when a two-judge bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with a challenge by TV Today Network to a single-judge Delhi HC bench order delivered 5 February 2013.
In 2013, the court had ruled that the press and the media perform a public function and discharge a public duty of disseminating news, views & information, initiating and responding to debates, among others. Importantly, the court had also directed the TV Today Network to pay Rs 5 lakh damages to the victim’s family members. Challenging this, the media house had moved the two-judge bench of the same court.
The controversy in the present case arose in August 2005, when the TV channel had revealed the identity of a child who had accused her father of sexually abusing and criminally intimidating her. The petition, moved by the child’s mother in 2005, said the channel had disclosed the identity of her father, his designation, official address, the fact that X was his daughter, as well as the street and block where they lived—all of which clearly revealed the identity of the sexual abuse survivor.
The two-judge Bench has now said that it was not possible that the child abuse victim’s family thought it was “perfectly permissible” for the channel to broadcast the events which transpired in this case to the viewing public, without their consent, especially after the girl’s mother had refused interaction with the channel’s team.
“We cannot believe that the appellant was of the view that it was perfectly permissible for it to broadcast, to the viewing public, who viewed its Aaj Tak programme, the events which transpired with X (child), without X’s consent, and especially when ABC (mother) had expressly declined to interact with the appellant’s team,” the court said while adding that the right to live with dignity is an aspect of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Such a right includes “the right against having any such details, of one’s personal existence, put up for public”, the court said, adding that the media organisation had a duty to maintain utmost secrecy and confidence in such a case.
“Such a duty of the press & media stems from the need to prevent social obliteration and humiliation of the victim. The potential of the press and media to cause such harm is immense because the press and the media enjoy a position of trust in the society and also because of their reach,” the court reiterated while relying on the single judge’s 2013 ruling.
“Any violation of such duty would fall within the ambit of scrutiny of this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, especially a fundamental right of the victim has been violated,” the court said.
Role of media
Privacy is recognised as an integral part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court said. Although, the right to privacy is subject to exceptions in cases where the matter has become a part of public record, in cases of sexual assault, kidnap, abduction and similar offences, this exception would not apply, the single judge had said.
Relying on the Norms of Journalistic Conduct issued by the Press Council of India in 1996, the HC had said that disclosure of “things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, health, sexuality, personal life and private affairs” are prohibited.
While reporting any case of sexual abuse of children, “the names, photographs of the victims or other particulars leading to their identity” are also not to be disclosed, the court made clear.
The single judge HC bench had also noted that a writ petition can be filed even against a private body performing a public function or discharging a public duty under Article 226.
“The right to privacy is, thus, both a common law right and a fundamental right. It can, therefore, be enforced by way of judicial review under Article 226 as well as by way of civil proceedings in a civil court,” the two-judge bench also ruled in the present case.
Saying that the media holds the power to change public opinion, the HC added that press and media, of which the appellant is an inalienable part, certainly perform a public function, and also discharge the public duty of dissemination of news, views and information, debates on current issues, and the like.
Finally, the HC said that the present judgment was rendered 12 years ago, and the extent of societal penetration, by the media, both electronic as well as by the press, has only increased since then, by leaps and bounds. “Human affairs, in today’s day and age, are often controlled, to the greatest extent, by the fourth estate,” the court said while adding that media commands the immense power of making, moulding, sustaining and even changing public opinion.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj booked for revealing identity of minor rape survivor