"No Means No": Delhi High Court Upholds ₹5L Compensation Against Aaj Tak for Telecasting Child Sexual Abuse Victim's Identity Despite Mother's Express Refusal
The Court held that media performs public function and is amenable to Article 226 writ jurisdiction; holds ABC's prior disclosure of X's identity does not provide carte blanche to Aaj Tak to do likewise.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, while upholding Rs. 5 lakh compensation against TV Today Network Limited, which operates the Aaj Tak news channel, for telecasting details sufficient to disclose the identity of a child sexual abuse victim despite her mother's express refusal to interact with the channel's crew, has held that the only course of action open to the channel upon such refusal was to withdraw and give up the idea of telecasting any mention of what had transpired with the child.
The Court held that proceeding to telecast the programme despite this express refusal was a blatant violation of the child's right to privacy and confidentiality ingrained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the extent to which a citizen desires to enforce her right to privacy is the exclusive prerogative of that citizen, a principle the Court drove home by borrowing a famous dialogue from a Hindi film: "No means no".
The Court further held that the fact that the mother may have at some earlier stage disclosed the identity of her daughter to another channel does not provide a carte blanche to the rest of the world to do likewise, and that even if such prior disclosure were presumed, it would not extinguish the child's right to privacy or provide any justification to the appellant channel for its conduct. The Court characterised the telecast as 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 victim.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “…There is no question of the right to privacy having been sacrificed by any act committed by ABC, especially as the right arises out of a duty which vests exclusively in the appellant to ensure that, when ABC had clearly expressed her disinclination to entertain the appellant’s visiting crew members, the appellant ought to have stepped back, as the learned Single Judge has correctly held. 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’”.
Senior Advocate Sushil Salwan appeared for the appellant and Advocate Jayshree Satpute appeared for the respondent.
The case arose from an FIR registered on August 02, 2005 at PS Vasant Kunj by X, a minor girl, alleging that her own father P had sexually assaulted her. The very next day, a Star TV team interviewed the mother ABC at their residence, during which ABC disclosed X's identity and particulars.
ABC thereafter specifically prohibited Star TV from telecasting the interview. On August 07, 2005, TV Today Network's team from Aaj Tak visited the residence seeking an interview. ABC expressly declined.
Despite this, on the very same day, Aaj Tak telecast a programme which disclosed the name, designation and official address of P, the fact that X was his daughter, her age, visual shots of the colony display board disclosing the sector and pocket where the family resided, the staircase leading to their home and the voice of ABC refusing entry, all of which were found by the Single Judge and now the Division Bench to be patently sufficient to disclose the identity of X in her community and society.
The family was compelled to leave their home and go into hiding.
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's finding on maintainability, holding that the press and media, of which TV Today Network is an inalienable part, perform a public function of disseminating news and information and discharging a public duty of ensuring that such function is performed without injuring the fundamental rights of persons involved.
“…while the remedy under Article 32 may be available only against a “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12, this restriction does not apply to Article 226. A writ, under Article 226, can issue even to a purely private body, provided it is discharging a public function or public duty, and the relief sought is to compel discharge of such public function or public duty.TV Today Network was directed to pay the balance compensation within four weeks, failing which interest at 12 percent per annum would apply”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: TV Today Network Limited v. ABC and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5173-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Sushil Salwan, Senior Advocate, Hrishikesh Baruah, Pragya Agarwal, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Kumar Kshitij, Nishtha Sachan and Yashaswy Ghosh, Advocates.
Respondents: Jayshree Satpute, Damini Chawla, Farha Qureshi, Anshuman, Sukhbir Sheoran, Advocates.