In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that private media organisations can be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if they perform public functions and are accused of violating fundamental rights. The Court observed that although a media house may be privately owned, its role in informing the public carries constitutional responsibilities.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, which upheld an earlier order directing TV Today Network to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation for violating the privacy of a minor survivor of sexual abuse. The Bench concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the findings of the single judge.
The case stemmed from a television broadcast relating to allegations of sexual abuse made by a minor against her father. According to the Court, the broadcaster aired material that could identify the child despite legal protections safeguarding the identity of sexual assault survivors. The programme reportedly included details about the victim’s father, visuals of the family’s residence, and the mother’s voice, even though the family had allegedly refused to participate in interviews.
Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the High Court rejected the broadcaster’s contention that a private media company falls outside the scope of writ proceedings. It held that news organisations perform an essential public function by disseminating information to society and, therefore, are expected to exercise that responsibility in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees, including the protection of fundamental rights.
The Bench also dismissed the argument that the family had already disclosed information elsewhere, making the broadcast permissible. It clarified that a person’s selective disclosure of private information does not amount to unrestricted consent for others to publish or broadcast the same details. Individuals retain the right to control how and when their personal information is shared.
Affirming the compensation awarded earlier, the Court directed the broadcaster to deposit the outstanding amount within four weeks. It further stated that any delay in compliance would attract interest until the payment is made, reinforcing the need for media organisations to respect privacy rights while carrying out their public role.
The post Private Media may face writ petitions when performing public functions: Delhi High Court appeared first on India Legal.