Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23850
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
SUMESH G.S @ SUMESH MARCOPOLO
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1214 2022
I.V.PRAMOD, SAIRA SOURAJ, P.
The court reaffirmed that the media does not have the right to invade personal privacy without justifiable grounds, especially when sensitive community statuses are involved.
Headnote:
Media - Defamation - Indian Penal Code Sections 354A, Information Technology Act Sections 66E, 67A, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) - The court interpreted the illegal invasion of privacy and the specific provisions of the PoA Act regarding insults based on caste, ruling that the publication of private content without consent constitutes an offense under the PoA Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, media personnel, published disparaging news items involving private moments of the 2nd respondent after a complaint was filed against her former employer. This raised serious allegations of privacy invasion and intent to denigrate the 2nd respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publication of the 2nd respondent's private moments constituted a serious infringement of her privacy and qualified as an offense under the PoA Act due to the appellants' knowledge of her Scheduled Tribe status.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the publication of private video content by the appellants constituted an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other applicable laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the unauthorized publication of another's private life for public consumption, particularly when the subject belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, is a violation of privacy rights and constitutes an offense under the PoA Act.
Final Decision: The appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2023 The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.
574 of 2022, registered at the Infopark Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(iii), 354A (iv) of Indian Penal Code , Sections 66E and 67A of Information Technology Act and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('PoA' Act for short). The FIR is registered based on the 2nd respondent' complaint. The gist of 2nd respondent's allegations are as under;
The 2nd respondent had filed a complaint against her former employer T.P. Nandakumar, who was running an online news channel by name 'Crime Online', alleging that Nandakumar had compelled her to videograph her nudity for creating a morphed video of a lady Minister of the State. Based on the complaint, Crime No. 712 of 2022 was registered at the Ernakulam Town Police Station and T.P. Nandakumar was arrested. Provoked by the arrest of T.P.
Nandakumar, the appellants, who are also media persons working in an online channel by name 'Bharath Live', published news items containing disparaging remarks against the 2nd respondent and picturising her as a lady of loose morals. In the news items, videos from the private moments of the 2nd respondent's personal life was also included. The news items were published with the knowledge that the 2nd respondent belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community.
2. The appellants moved the Sessions Court, Ernakulam for anticipatory bail and having failed in their attempt, this Crl.Appeal is filed.
3. Heard Adv. I.V. Pramod for the appellants, Adv. K.
Nandini for the 2nd respondent and Sr. Public Prosecutor Renjith George for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants assertively submitted that none of the offences alleged against the appellants are attracted. If the news item is viewed, it will be evident that no abusive comments were made against the 2nd respondent and no obscene or inappropriate scenes from the private life of the 2nd respondent was included. The news items published on 18.06.2022 and subsequent days are more an expression of protest against the false implication of T.P. Nandakumar and a revelation of the atrocities committed against him by the 2nd respondent. According to the counsel, protest by the press/media against the atrocious acts of the 2nd respondent will not attract offences under the PoA Act. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not necessary and hence, pre-arrest bail ought to be granted. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to abide by condition imposed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that her client is being hounded by the appellants from the moment she lodged the complaint against T.P. Nandakumar. The video uploaded and published by the appellants on 18.06.2022 through their news channel contains private moments from the 2nd respondent's life, wherein the 2nd respondent is inappropriately dressed. The idea behind the news stories was to depict the 2nd respondent as an immoral lady, who is in the habit of filing false complaints. The conversation between T.P. Nandakumar and a Dy.S.P., which is included in the news item, is sufficient proof that the appellants knew that the 2nd respondent belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. It is therefore beyond cavil that the abusive news and videos were published with intent to denigrate the 2nd respondent and thus, the appellants have committed the alleged offences.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the plea for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected, since the available materials are sufficient to attract the offences under the PoA Act.
7. It is not in dispute that a news item containing video footage of private moments from the 2nd respondent's personal life was published through the online news channel. Therefore, the short question is whether publication of such video content would attract offences under
