Delhi High Court: TV Today Ordered to Pay ₹5 Lakh for Exposing Child Sexual Abuse Survivor's Identity

Home / Top Stories TV Today To Pay ₹5 Lakh For Exposing Child Sexual Abuse Survivor's Identity: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Order X Supreme Court upholds ₹5 lakh compensation against Aaj Tak for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor by airing identifying details Supreme Court has said a media outlet cannot disown the public nature of its functions when it comes to paying compensation for an irresponsible broadcast. The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea filed by TV Today, which operates Aaj Tak, against the Delhi High Court's order directing it to pay ₹5 lakhs as compensation ffor violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the plea filed by TV Today Network. Just last month, the Delhi High Court upheld a Single Judge's order directing TV Today Network Ltd. to pay Rs.5 lakh compensation for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor, holding that media organisations perform a public function and are constitutionally obligated to protect fundamental rights. Dismissing an appeal filed by TV Today Network Ltd., a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that the broadcaster had "blatantly violated" the child's fundamental right to privacy by telecasting sufficient details to identify her despite the mother's refusal to cooperate with the channel. The Court directed the broadcaster to pay the remaining compensation amount within four weeks, failing which it would attract 12% annual interest until payment. Media Performs a public function, Writ maintainable against Private News Channel One of the principal issues before the Court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against a private media organisation. Rejecting the broadcaster's objection, the Bench held that although TV Today Network Ltd. is not "State" under Article 12, it performs the public function of disseminating news and, therefore, owes a corresponding public duty to ensure that constitutional rights are not infringed. The Court observed: "In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to hold that the media... does not perform any public function." The Bench held that where a private body discharges a public function, constitutional remedies under Article 226 remain available in addition to ordinary civil remedies. Broadcast violated Child's Right to Privacy The case arose from an FIR registered in August 2005 alleging that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted by her father. Following the FIR, the child's mother initially gave an interview to another television channel identifying her daughter but later withdrew her consent before the interview was aired. That request was honoured. Subsequently, a crew from Aaj Tak visited the family's residence seeking an interview. After the mother refused permission and declined to speak to the reporters, the channel nevertheless aired a programme revealing: -the father's full name, -his official designation, -his place of employment, -the locality where the family lived, -visuals of the family's residence and surrounding area, and -the mother's voice. The child's mother then approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the broadcast disclosed sufficient particulars to identify the child survivor and violated her constitutional right to privacy. Court criticises "TRP Driven" Journalism The Division Bench strongly criticised the broadcaster's conduct, observing that commercial considerations appeared to have taken precedence over the rights of a 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 the child," the Court observed. The Bench described the broadcaster's conduct as "deeply disturbing" and said it reflected "a woeful lack of understanding of fundame

Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware of the potential liability for media outlets in exposing child victims' identities, and consider advising clients on best practices to avoid similar issues.

Source: Original reporting via LawBeat