Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 166
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
ABC
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Others
W.P.(C.) No. 12730 of 2005 & C.M. Nos. 9505, 13315 of 2005 & 12222 of 2007
Decided on : 05-02-2013
For the Petitioner:Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Anjum Javed along with S.I. in person, R2, A.J. Bhambhani, Apurv, R3, S.D. Salwan, Advocates.
The press and media perform a public function and discharge a public duty of disseminating news, views & information; initiating and responding to debates; dealing with matters of current interest in the society in all fields such as politics, morality, law, crime, arts, sports, entertainment, science, philosophy, religion, etc. Their functions touch the lives of practically everyone. Their reach is very deep and pervasive. Infact, the audiovisual media creates an even greater impact in today’s time with deeper & wider penetration all across the State. They command immense power of making, moulding, sustaining or even changing public opinion. The functions performed by the press & media are recognised by the State which, consequently, accords various rights & privileges to them.
Headnote:
The Delhi High Court held that the press and media perform a public function and discharge a public duty of disseminating news, views & information; initiating and responding to debates; dealing with matters of current interest in the society in all fields such as politics, morality, law, crime, arts, sports, entertainment, science, philosophy, religion, etc. Their functions touch the lives of practically everyone. Their reach is very deep and pervasive. Infact, the audiovisual media creates an even greater impact in today’s time with deeper & wider penetration all across the State. They command immense power of making, moulding, sustaining or even changing public opinion. The functions performed by the press & media are recognised by the State which, consequently, accords various rights & privileges to them.
Fact of the Case:
A minor girl filed a complaint against her father for sexual abuse. The contents of the FIR were leaked to the media by the police and were published in a newspaper and reported on a news channel. The petitioner, the girl's mother, filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of the girl's right to privacy and confidentiality and claiming compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publication of the FIR violated the girl's right to privacy and confidentiality, which is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the media had a duty to maintain utmost secrecy and confidentiality in the matter of the identity of the victim of alleged child sexual abuse. The court awarded compensation to the petitioner for the violation of her daughter's fundamental rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the FIR violated the girl's right to privacy and confidentiality? 2. Whether the media had a duty to maintain utmost secrecy and confidentiality in the matter of the identity of the victim of alleged child sexual abuse? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the violation of her daughter's fundamental rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publication of the FIR violated the girl's right to privacy and confidentiality because it disclosed particulars which would identify the victim of alleged child sexual abuse. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., which held that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the media has a duty to maintain utmost secrecy and confidentiality in the matter of the identity of the victim of alleged child sexual abuse, as per the norms of journalistic conduct laid down by the Press Council of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the violation of her daughter's fundamental rights because the media's conduct caused her daughter to suffer embarrassment and trauma. The court awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs), out of which Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) was to be paid by the police and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) was to be paid by the media.
Final Decision: The court directed the police to conduct an inquiry into the disclosure of the FIR and restrained the police and the media from passing on any information that could lead to the identification of the girl. The court also awarded compensation to the petitioner for the violation of her daughter's fundamental rights.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner herein on behalf of her daughter (minor at the time of filing of the present petition) as her mother and next friend, alleging violation of the right to privacy and confidentiality of her daughter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and other legal rights and seeking appropriate relief in respect thereof.
2. The cause of action giving rise to the present petition relates to the alleged disclosure of First Information Report (FIR) of the petitioner’s daughter, alleging a case of sexual abuse against her own father, by Respondent No. 1 herein to other respondents herein viz. respondent No.2 - Hindustan Times House, and respondent No.3 - Aaj Tak, and consequent publicity of the same by the latter.
3. Keeping in view the gravity and nature of allegations and also the social object of preventing societal victimisation, ostracism and embarrassment of the victim of alleged sexual abuse, as taken note of by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, (2004) 1 SCC 475, I have directed the registry not to mention the name of the petitioner and her daughter in the cause title of the present petition, and also propose to not mention the same in the judgment. The name of the petitioner and her daughter occurring in the petition and the documents filed with it have been obliterated while preserving copies/originals of the same.
Petitioner’s Submissions
4. It is the petitioner’s case that an FIR was registered by her daughter alleging a case of sexual abuse against her father in the concerned Police Station on 02.08.2005. It is alleged that the contents of the said FIR were leaked by respondent no. 1, as the same came to be- quoted and published in the newspaper article dated 04.08.2005 of respondent no. 2, and also reported & aired by respondent no. 3 in its television programme on 07.08.2005.
5. It is alleged that the newspaper article dated 04.08.2005 of respondent no. 2 reveals the age of the petitioner’s daughter, the locality in which she resides, the class in which she studies and the occupation of her father. It is alleged that the said article extensively quotes not only the contents of the FIR but also the statement of the police officer concerned with the said complaint.
6. As regards respondent no. 3, it is alleged that the crew members of respondent no. 3 approached the petitioner and her daughter at their home and attempted to interview them in a deceptive manner against their will. It is alleged that thereafter, respondent no. 3 aired a programme on its television channel on 07.08.2005, telecasting the said intrusion and giving wide publicity to the incident- by revealing the name, designation, and office of the accused father; by showing several images of the colony in which the Petitioner and her family were residing along with the petitioner’s doorstep; and by airing the recorded voice of the Petitioner refusing entry to crew members of respondent no. 3.
7. Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that publicity of such minute details was sufficient for the identity of the victim/prosecutrix to be revealed. Respondents having done so, without obtaining the consent/authorisation from the petitioner, have violated the provisions of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’); the ‘Norms of Journalistic conduct’ laid down by the Press Council of India (PCI), governing respondent no. 2 & 3; and above all the right of the minor victim of alleged sexual abuse to privacy and confidentiality enshrined in the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal ALIAS R.R. Gopal & Another v. State of T.N. & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 632, and Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC
