The Supreme Court of India has upheld a decision mandating TV Today Network, the operator of Aaj Tak, to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation for infringing upon the privacy of a child sexual abuse survivor by disclosing identifying details in a broadcast. The ruling came as a result of the network’s challenge to the Delhi High Court’s directive [TV Today Network Limited v. ABC].
Supreme Court’s Dismissal
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana rejected the appeal filed by TV Today. The bench found the network’s arguments unconvincing, particularly the claim that as a private entity, it was not subject to writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2005 when a minor girl filed an FIR alleging sexual assault by her father. Despite the mother’s refusal to participate in an interview, Aaj Tak aired a report revealing sensitive information, including the father’s name and visuals of the family’s residence. Consequently, the child’s mother filed a writ petition against the channel.
In 2013, a single-judge bench awarded ₹5 lakh in compensation to the child’s mother. TV Today challenged this decision before a Division Bench, which upheld the ruling, asserting that private media companies performing public functions fall under the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Arguments Presented
During the Supreme Court proceedings, TV Today’s counsel contended that the High Court’s findings were inconsistent with its own principles. The counsel further argued that the victim’s mother had reached a compromise with the father, suggesting the case’s resolution should affect the ruling against TV Today.
More Read
Judicial Observations
Justice Bagchi emphasized that media entities cannot selectively acknowledge their public role when it benefits them, only to disclaim it when held accountable. He highlighted the expectation that media should act responsibly, especially when it comes to privacy issues.
The bench was firm in its stance, with Justice Bagchi expressing support for encouraging more claims if similar privacy violations occur. He stated, “Yes, it should open. We encourage it,” in response to concerns about potential repercussions of the High Court’s order.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal reinforces the notion that media outlets have a duty to uphold the privacy rights of individuals, particularly vulnerable groups such as minors. This ruling serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that accompany the freedom of the press.
