The Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that even private media companies perform a public function and they are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts for violating the right to privacy of an individual. .A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld a 2013 single-judge ruling directing TV Today Network to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation for violating the privacy of a child survivor of sexual abuse by broadcasting details that could reveal her identity.It rejected TV Today’s appeal against the order and ruled that the single-judge was right in holding the writ petition against the broadcaster maintainable. "We are of the opinion that the appellant [TV Today] is in fact discharging a public function, which involved the public duty to ensure that the public function was discharged without injuring the fundamental rights of the persons involved, and that the reliefs sought in the writ petition were intended to ensure proper and constitutional discharge of such public function,” the Court observed. .The case arose from a 2005 incident in which a minor girl lodged an FIR against her father alleging sexual assault. It was stated that after the child's mother refused to allow the broadcaster's crew to interview her or her daughter, the channel nevertheless aired a report containing the father's name, designation and workplace, visuals of the family's residential colony and house, and the mother's voice. According to the Court order, the victim’s mother filed a writ petition against the channel in 2005 and in 2013, a single-judge allowed the plea and awarded damages of ₹5 lakh in favour of the child’s mother.TV Today challenged the order before the Division Bench. One of the arguments raised in the appeal was that the channel, being a private entity, was not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the court. .However, the Division Bench ruled that the press performs a public function while disseminating news and is therefore, amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction when allegations concern breach of public duties or fundamental rights.The Court also rejected the broadcaster's contention that the child's mother had herself disclosed her daughter's identity by giving an interview to another news channel. It held that even if a person chooses to reveal aspects of their private life, that does not grant others unrestricted liberty to do the same.“Even if, for the sake of argument, it were to be presumed that, at any stage, ABC had, in any proceeding, disclosed the identity of X, that would 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 enforce her, or his, right to privacy, is the exclusive prerogative of the citizen, and the citizen’s decision in that regard has to be respected. To borrow a famous quote voiced by a well-known thespian from a somewhat recent Hindi film, “No means no”,” the Court observed. The Court also chastised TV Today for prioritising viewership ratings over the rights of the child victim."This is a classic case in which, probably in the zeal of securing higher TRPs, a Nelson’s eye was turned to the rights of X [child victim], who, even as per the appellant’s own understanding at that point of time, had alleged sexual assault at the hands of her own father," the Court noted. Ultimately, the Bench said that while it would have been inclined to award reparative costs, given the nature of TV Today’s appeal, it was not doing so. However, it directed the broadcaster to pay the remaining ₹5 lakh compensation awarded by the single-judge to the victim or her mother within four weeks, failing which it will attract 12% annual interest until payment..[Read Judgment]
