Delhi HC Confirms Article 226 Maintainability Against Media Houses for Privacy Violations

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in TV Today Network Limited v. ABC & Ors. (LPA 264/2013), dismissed TV Today Network’s appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision directing the media house to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child survivor of sexual assault. The Division Bench held that although TV Today Network is a private entity, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against it because, while disseminating news and information, it performs a public function and discharges a public duty.

The case arose when Aaj Tak news channel reported on allegations of sexual assault made by a minor girl against her father. The child’s mother alleged in the writ petition that the channel revealed the father’s identity, designation, official address, and the street and block of their residence. The channel also showed images of the colony and recorded the voice of the mother, who had refused the reporters entry into the house.

She further submitted that although the child’s name was not expressly disclosed, the broadcast revealed sufficient particulars to identify her. While Section 228-A IPC was initially invoked, the Division Bench noted that it did not apply to the offences alleged at the relevant time, and the mother did not press that ground. The court’s decision was instead grounded in Article 21, the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct issued by the Press Council of India.

While deciding the writ petition, the learned single judge held that a writ petition is maintainable even against a private body performing a public function or discharging a public duty. The judge further held that the telecast violated the child survivor’s right to privacy and confidentiality, disregarded the Press Council’s journalistic norms, and awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation.

Aggrieved, the news channel challenged the decision before the Division Bench, contending that it was a private entity and did not fall under the ambit of Article 12, and also it did not have any public duty, so the writ petition was not maintainable. It further contended that the telecast did not disclose the identity of the victim. So, just because the father’s identity was disclosed, it did not reveal the victim’s identity.

Examining the maintainability of the writ petition, the court reiterated that the maintainability of a writ petition against a private body depends upon the nature of the function or duty it performs. The decisive inquiry is the “function test”: whether the act complained of arose from the discharge of a public function or public duty. A writ may lie against a private entity where it performs a public function, discharges a public duty, or is subject to a positive obligation of a public nature.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani [(1989) 2 SCC 691], which held that a writ petition may lie against a private body performing a public function or public duty, and Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan [(2005) 6 SCC 657], which reiterated that the maintainability of a writ petition depends upon the nature of the function discharged rather than the character of the authority.

The Court remarked that the press and media occupy a unique constitutional position in a democracy. They perform a public function and discharge a public duty by disseminating news, views, and information; initiating and responding to public debate; and dealing with matters of current interest across fields such as politics, law, crime, morality, arts, sports, entertainment, science, philosophy, and religion. Thus, when a media house discharges the public function of reporting news, and the complaint concerns breach of the public duty attached to that function, it may be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court reiterated that the right to privacy forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Relying on R. Rajagopal, it held that even where facts enter the public record, victims of sexual assault remain protected from further disclosure of their identity or identifying particulars. The Court also noted that the Norms of Journalistic Conduct framed by the Press Council of India prohibit publication of names, photographs, or other particulars capable of revealing the identity of victims of sexual offences.

The Court held that disclosure of the father’s identity, official designation, residential details, visuals of the locality, and the family home was sufficient to lead to identification of the child, thereby violating her right to privacy and confidentiality. Rejecting the channel’s contention that the victim’s mother had earlier disclosed the child’s identity, the court held that it did not provide a carte blanche to the rest of the world to go ahead and do likewise. The extent to which a citizen desires to exercise her right to privacy is the exclusive prerogative of the citizen.

The Court further held that privacy is both a common law right and a fundamental right. Relying on the horizontal application of fundamental rights, it rejected the contention that compensation could not be awarded against a private media entity and affirmed that monetary compensation may be granted as a public-law remedy for violation of privacy and dignity.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the direction requiring TV Today Network to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation.