Delhi High Court Affirms Writ Jurisdiction Over Private Media
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing that private media entities, given their role in performing public functions, can be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. This decision comes in light of a case concerning the violation of an individual’s right to privacy.
On Wednesday, a Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld a 2013 single-judge decision. This decision had directed TV Today Network to compensate ₹5 lakh for infringing upon the privacy of a child survivor of sexual abuse by airing details that risked revealing her identity.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to a 2005 incident where a minor girl filed an FIR against her father, accusing him of sexual assault. Despite the mother’s refusal to allow interviews, the broadcaster aired a report divulging the father’s identity and other sensitive details.
Subsequently, the child’s mother filed a writ petition against TV Today, leading to the 2013 ruling by a single judge who awarded ₹5 lakh in damages. TV Today contested this order, arguing that as a private entity, it was not subject to the court’s writ jurisdiction.
High Court’s Ruling
The Division Bench dismissed TV Today’s appeal, affirming that media organizations, while disseminating news, undertake a public function. Hence, they fall under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction when there is a breach of public duties or fundamental rights.
More Read
The court also addressed the broadcaster’s claim that the child’s mother had previously disclosed her daughter’s identity during an interview with another channel. It clarified that such actions do not authorize others to do the same. The court emphasized the individual’s prerogative in deciding how to exercise their right to privacy, famously quoting, “No means no.”
Furthermore, the court criticized TV Today for seemingly prioritizing higher viewership ratings over the rights of the child victim. It remarked that the broadcaster had overlooked the rights of the victim in its zeal to secure better TRPs.
Compensation and Further Directives
While the Bench considered imposing additional costs due to the nature of the appeal, it refrained from doing so. However, it mandated TV Today to pay the remaining ₹5 lakh compensation within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in a 12% annual interest penalty until the payment is made.
