Delhi HC Rules Private Media Perform ‘Public Function’, Allows Privacy Suits
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled that private media houses perform a 'public function' and can be taken to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for violating an individual's right to privacy. The judgment, delivered on July 1 by a bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice O P Shukla, upheld a 2013 order directing TV Today Network to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation for broadcasting details that identified a minor victim of sexual assault.
The case dates back to August 2005, when a mother filed a police complaint alleging her husband sexually assaulted their minor daughter. Despite the mother explicitly refusing to interact with a crew from the news channel Aaj Tak, the network broadcast a segment revealing the father's name, his official designation, the colony's address board, visuals of the house, and the mother's voice. The mother subsequently filed a writ petition against the channel before the High Court.
The central legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be filed against a private television channel. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other legal right against the State or authorities discharging public duties. The court had to determine if a private media company falls within that ambit.
The court ruled that the media, even when privately owned, discharges a 'public function'. Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, it reasoned that the media's role in disseminating news and shaping public opinion is so central to society that it constitutes a public function. The court noted that it would be 'unrealistic to hold that the media do not perform any public function'. This role carries an inherent 'public duty to ensure that the rights of the public are not prejudiced or injured by the manner in which such public function is performed'.
Based on this, the court applied the fundamental right to privacy horizontally. Fundamental rights are typically applied vertically, meaning a citizen enforces them against the government. Horizontal application allows a citizen to enforce these rights against a non-State actor. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had, in the 2023 Kaushal Kishor judgment, established this principle, ruling that certain fundamental rights can be enforced horizontally against private individuals. The Delhi High Court now extended this specifically to the right to privacy against the press.
The court held that the channel's broadcast, aired without consent, was an illegal intrusion into the victim's privacy, justifying monetary compensation in a writ court. Legal experts said this ruling could alter the landscape of media litigation in India. Senior Advocate Madhavi Goradia Divan noted that while the legal groundwork existed, its specific use here is novel. 'In the Kaushal Kishor judgment, a lot of these questions were posed in the context of freedom of speech. So this is the first time they are being actively put together in the context of the media,' she said. Shameek Sen, professor of law, called the ruling a 'logical corollary' to Kaushal Kishor but cautioned about potential implications for press freedom.
The judgment underscores the evolving relationship between fundamental rights and private entities, particularly the media. It provides a new avenue for individuals to seek redress for privacy violations by the press, moving from civil courts to constitutional courts through writ petitions. However, the court did not specify that all media privacy violations would automatically qualify; each case will depend on its facts.
