SC says media can be sued for privacy violations; will judgment hurt journalism?

Indian constitutional law has been slowly adjusting to this truth. On Monday (August 10), the adjustment received the Supreme Court's seal. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed TV Today Network's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment of July 1. The channel, which runs Aaj Tak, must now pay ₹5 lakh to the mother of a child who had accused her own father of sexual assault, for a telecast aired in 2005. When the channel's counsel warned that the ruling would open the floodgates to writ petitions against the media, the bench replied: “We encourage it.”

The money is the smallest part of the story. The high court held that the press performs a public function, and that a citizen may therefore sue a news channel directly in a constitutional court. The Supreme Court has declined to disturb that holding. Indian media law has been quietly rewritten.

A knock refused, a story aired

On August 2, 2005, a Delhi schoolgirl lodged a police complaint accusing her father of sexual assault and intimidation. Five days later, an Aaj Tak crew arrived at the family's door. The mother refused entry. The crew left, but the channel aired a report the same evening. It named the father, gave his designation and office, showed the colony's signboard, the staircase and the doorstep, and broadcast the mother's recorded voice.

Also read: SC urges law review on abortion limits in rape cases amid minor's pregnancy plea

The mother moved the Delhi High Court through a writ petition, a direct plea to a constitutional court to enforce fundamental rights without the delay of a civil trial. In 2013, a single judge awarded ₹5 lakh as damages. The channel lost its first appeal before the division bench of the high court on July 1, and has today lost its challenge to the high court’s judgement in the Supreme Court.

Jigsaw identification

The channel protested that it had never named the girl. The court rejected this narrow idea of identification. Identity leaks through harmless-looking clues in combination: the accused's name, his relationship to the victim, a locality, an age, a doorstep, a voice. Media lawyers call this “jigsaw identification”. Assembled, they sufficed for neighbours and the family's community to recognise the child.

Press a public functionary

The channel's larger defence was that it is a private company, and fundamental rights bind only the State. The Supreme Court has long held that a high court's writ power reaches anybody performing a “public function”, that is, work resembling what the State does for its people. In S Shobha vs Muthoot Finance Ltd (2025), it distilled this into a “function test”: ask what the body does, not what it is. The Delhi High Court held that a news channel passes the test. The media informs the citizen and moulds public opinion. Woven into that function is a public duty: report without trampling upon the rights of the people reported upon.

The Supreme Court's bench pressed the point from the same direction. “Are you seriously arguing on maintainability?” Justice Bagchi asked the counsel, using the lawyer's word for whether a case can be brought at all. There is, the judge observed, “a difference between sovereign and public function”. The chief justice added that the media should proudly own “a public duty of paramount importance”.

Privacy against private power

Lawyers picture fundamental rights as running “vertically”, upward from citizen to State. On that view, only the government could violate them. In Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), which made privacy a fundamental right, nine judges wrote six opinions and settled nothing about private violators.

A refusal to be interviewed is not a veto over publication; investigative journalism would perish if a closed door could kill a story.

In Kaushal Kishor vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), a five-judge constitution bench changed course by four to one. The rights to life and to free expression, it held, also run “horizontally”, sideways, from one citizen to another. A private company can violate your fundamental rights just as surely as a government can, and a constitutional court can make it pay.

Also read: Why Delhi HC judgment on ‘right to be forgotten’ has the legal fraternity divided

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine in Jane Kaushik vs Union of India (2025), compensating a transgender teacher whom two private schools turned away, notably by travelling through Parliament's own statute on transgender rights rather than the raw Constitution. For children and assault survivors, the remedy is worth much. The violation itself is the injury, with no years-long civil suit to prove loss.

Court slams channel’s defence

The channel's boldest defence was chronological. In 2005, no statute barred disclosure of this child's identity; the express bar arrived only with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) in 2012. The bench found the submission “deeply disturbing”. Fundamental rights apply to every citizen. They need no statute to exist. A decade before the telecast, R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994) had held that a sexual assault victim's identity may not be publicised even from public records. The Press Council's norms said the same by 1996. A missing penal provision was never a licence. Statutory compliance is the floor of journalism, not its ceiling.

No means no, but is it a veto?

The channel argued that the mother had spoken to another broadcaster days earlier, and had thereby surrendered the family's privacy. The court's reply was withering. A citizen alone decides how far to assert her privacy, and against whom. Disclosure to one is no invitation to all. “No means no”, the bench said.

Also read: SC urges law review on abortion limits in rape cases amid minor's pregnancy plea

One passage, though, is wider than its facts. The court says that once the mother refused, the “only course” was to withdraw and drop the story altogether. As a general rule, that cannot be right. A refusal to be interviewed is not a veto over publication; investigative journalism would perish if a closed door could kill a story. The refusal barred the recorded encounter and the identifying details. It did not bar a sober, verified report on the police complaint, with the child's identity fully shielded.

A shield, or a pressure point?

What shields a victim can also be brandished by the powerful. Politicians and corporations routinely describe critical reporting as an assault on privacy and dignity. Such claimants may now dress grievances about accuracy as constitutional cases, bringing instant pressure on newsrooms.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of TV Today's appeal settles the channel's fate, but several questions remain. The Supreme Court gave no reasoned judgment. It simply refused to entertain the special leave petition, the discretionary route by which it picks the appeals it will hear.

The channel's counsel put this floodgates fear to the Supreme Court directly. The bench's answer, “We encourage it”, was delivered with confidence rather than criteria. Confidence is not a filter. The writ should answer a grave, demonstrable breach of a public duty, not substitute for a defamation trial where facts are contested. The facts here were unusually strong. An exposé of a minister's assets would present an altogether different balance.

What the order skipped

Loose threads remain. The Delhi High Court leaned on the Kaushal Kishor case without confronting a tension inside it: the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case held that Article 19(2), the Constitution's short list of permitted reasons for curbing speech, is exhaustive, and privacy does not figure in that list. And the court treated the Press Council's norms as binding for a television channel, though the Press Council Act, 1978 covers only newspapers and news agencies.

Also read: 'India stifles free expression, media freedom': Report on Commonwealth nations

The Supreme Court's dismissal of TV Today's appeal settles the channel's fate, not these questions. The Supreme Court gave no reasoned judgment. It simply refused to entertain the special leave petition, the discretionary route by which it picks the appeals it will hear. As the court explained in Kunhayammed vs State of Kerala (2000), a refusal without reasons means only that the court declined to interfere. The high court's judgment survives on its own strength; the refusal adds no countrywide rule, and remarks from the bench bind nobody in the next case. The larger questions of horizontal rights await a full judgment.

Price of spectacle

For newsrooms, the immediate lesson is to test anonymisation from the audience's side: could a neighbour, colleague or schoolmate assemble the clues? And to read consent narrowly: speaking to one channel licenses no one else. The high court named the motive, “the zeal of securing higher TRPs”, and the observation stings because it is familiar. Ratings-driven television has made a spectacle of grieving families for two decades. That spectacle now carries a constitutional price, though the CJI offered a consolation of sorts: the ₹5 lakh, the CJI remarked, could be treated as “a small voluntary donation”.

Also read: Sephora, cosmeticorexia and the influencer threat to media

What this precedent becomes will depend on how firmly courts separate a grave invasion of privacy from a complaint designed to silence legitimate journalism. “We encourage it,” said the bench. The encouragement will be tested by who walks through the door next.