Writ petition is filed to seek protection against violation of a fundamental right and is usually done against the government or government controlled bodies. However, the Delhi High Court decided that the wordings of Article 226 of the constitution is such that it would also extend to private bodies engaged in public activities and that new agencies whether print or television even if privately owned are engaged in public activities and thus come within the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Justice Vipin Sanghi of the Delhi High Court has recently held that private news broadcaster, Aaj Taj is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hearing a petition filed against the Delhi Police, Hindustan Times and Aaj Tak, the High Court directed the news channel to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation for the mental trauma and embarrassment suffered by a rape victim after Aaj Tak telecast a news piece containing specific details about the victim. The petition had been filed on the grounds that the actions of the Respondents had violated the right to privacy and confidentiality embodied in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petition relates to an FIR filed by the rape victim, an FIR which the Petitioner claims was subsequently leaked by the Delhi Police to the media. The grievance against Hindustan Times lies in a newspaper article published a few days after the incident, an article which allegedly contained enough information to reveal the identity of the victim. As for Aaj Tak, it was claimed that the news channel’s crew members tried to interview the rape victim using deceitful means. It was further claimed that after the rape victim’s mother refused the interview, the news channel telecast a news piece which showed the residential locality of the victim, as well as the audio recordings of the victim’s mother refusing to let the crew into her house.
On the ground of maintainability, Justice Sanghi observed that a private news agency does fall within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on previous judgments of the Supreme Court wherein the scope of Article 226 had been expanded to include private entities which “exercises public functions”, Justice Sanghi opined that:
“Considering the immense impact that the press and media has over the polity, in my view, it cannot be said that they do not perform a public function or discharge a public duty, inter alia, when they perform the act of reporting news… The potential of the press and media to cause such harm is immense because the press and the media enjoy a position of trust in the society and also because of their reach. Any function/activity, alleged to be in violation of such duty, would fall within the ambit of scrutiny of this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the same is alleged to have infringed the fundamental rights of the victim.” [Paras 48-49]
The High Court rejected the Respondents’ plea that the Petitioner could avail of alternative remedies under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (under which disclosing the name of the juvenile victim is an offence) or approach the Press Council of India (Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 grants the PCI with the power of censure for breach of journalistic ethics). The reasoning adopted by the Court was that since the petition was based on the violation of a fundamental right, the High Court was the court of competent jurisdiction.
After examining the article published by Hindustan Times, the Court observed that the said article did not include details which could have revealed the identity of the victim. However, the same could not be said about the news piece aired by Aaj Tak. Interestingly, the Court also ruled that Aaj Tak’s conduct was in breach of the norms of journalistic conduct as noted by the PCI. Subsequently it directed Aaj Tak to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the victim. The Court also directed the Delhi Police to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh since it was clear that the police too were guilty of gross negligence in revealing the details of the victim’s FIR.
On the calculation of damages, Justice Sanghi stated:
“The award of damages in such cases, of necessity, has to be on the basis of some guess work. The embarrassment caused to the petitioner and her daughter by the telecast of the programme …. …. … was so great that they had to relocate themselves and go into hiding for several years. The purpose of award of damages in such cases is also to set an example for others, so that it acts as a deterrent against such similar misadventures at the cost of victims of alleged sexual abuse.”
There is simply not enough fresh news of mass appeal generated to support 24 hour channels day after day. Therefore, we now find over the last 2-3 years, the news agencies, particularly the TV channels have started referring to every news a "breaking news". They should be calling it "milking". They try to extract the last bit of mass appeal from every item reported and if any news appears to have more than usual public interest, they simply go all out. From camping outside the area where it occurred, to having panel discussions and what not.
But its silly to blame these conduits of our taste. As a society we have become voyeurs and frankly, a tragedy or a horrible news or a scandal is far more interesting to us than our own boring lives. So, while it is impossible to change the taste of a society - that happens over time and in its own way, the decision to make the news agencies legally answerable to High Courts is extremely welcome.
Comments
Post a Comment