The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by TV Today Network Ltd., which operates the Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, and upheld a Single Judge’s direction to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor. Holding that the media performs a public function and bears a corresponding duty to protect fundamental rights, the Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla found that Aaj Tak’s telecast had blatantly violated the child’s right to privacy.
The case arose from an FIR registered in August 2005 on allegations that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted by her father. Soon after the FIR, the child’s mother (ABC) gave an interview to another television channel identifying her daughter, but subsequently withdrew her consent and requested that the interview not be aired. The request was honoured.
A few days later, a crew from Aaj Tak, operated by TV Today Network Ltd., visited the family’s residence seeking an interview. After ABC refused to interact with the reporters or permit them to enter the premises, the channel nevertheless aired a programme disclosing the father’s full name, official designation, place of employment, the locality where the family resided, visuals of the house and surrounding area, and the mother’s voice. Alleging that the broadcast disclosed sufficient particulars to identify the child victim and violated her fundamental right to privacy, ABC approached the Delhi High Court seeking compensation. A Single Judge allowed the petition and awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation, prompting TV Today to file the present appeal.
Also Read: National Stock Exchange Is a ‘Public Authority’ Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
The Division Bench framed the following three issues for consideration: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable against the appellant; (ii) whether the appellant had violated the child survivor’s right to privacy and the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct; and (iii) whether the Single Judge was justified in awarding ₹5 lakh as compensation.
(i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable?
The Division Bench answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that although TV Today Network Ltd. is not “State” under Article 12, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private entity discharging a public function. The Court observed that dissemination of news is a public function and carries a corresponding duty to ensure that fundamental rights are not violated.
The Court reasoned that in the present era, it would be unrealistic to hold that the media does not perform a public function. Since dissemination of news is a public function, it necessarily carries a public duty to ensure that the rights of citizens are not prejudiced by the manner in which that function is discharged. The Court observed:
“
“In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to hold that the media, and those who form an inalienable part thereof, do not perform any public function. Inherent, in the public function performed by the media, which would include the appellant, is the public duty to ensure that the rights of the public are not prejudiced or injured by the manner in which such public function is performed. Intrinsically intertwined with the performance of the public function is, therefore, the public duty to ensure due care and attention during its discharge and performance.”
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court referred to Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691, which held that writs can issue against private bodies discharging public duties; Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657, Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303, and S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, which explain the scope of Article 226 against non-State entities performing public functions.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the writ petition alleged a serious violation of the child victim’s right to privacy and confidentiality arising from Aaj Tak’s telecast. If the allegations were ultimately established, they would amount to an improper and illegal discharge of the appellant’s public function of disseminating news. The Bench therefore held that the relief sought in the writ petition was intended to ensure the proper and constitutional discharge of that public function.
The Court also rejected TV Today’s contention that ABC ought to have pursued an ordinary civil remedy. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649, it held that where a private body performs a public function, the remedy under Article 226 is available “apart from and in addition to the remedy available in ordinary civil law,” and therefore the plea of an alternative remedy could not defeat the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the writ petition was, therefore, maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
(ii) Whether the appellant violated the child’s right to privacy or the Press Council of India’s Journalistic Norms?
The Division Bench answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that Aaj Tak had violated both the child survivor’s fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct framed by the Press Council of India (PCI).
At the outset, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument that, since the telecast was aired in 2005, before the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), there was no statutory prohibition on disclosing the identity of a child sexual assault survivor or her father. The Bench held that the absence of a statutory embargo did not dilute the constitutional guarantee of privacy, which inheres in the right to life under Article 21.The Court was critical of the broadcaster’s conduct, observing:
“
“This is a classic case in which, probably in the zeal of securing higher TRPs, a Nelson’s eye was turned to the rights of X, who, even as per the appellant’s own understanding at that point of time, had alleged sexual assault at the hands of her own father. The apathy displayed by the appellant….is deeply disturbing. Apart from the fact that such an attitude is not expected from what purports to be a TV channel of some distinction, it also displays a woeful lack of understanding of fundamental rights, and what they mean and entail.”
For the scope of the right to privacy, the Court referred to R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 715, which recognise privacy as a fundamental right and mandate protection of the identity of sexual offence victims.
The Bench held that once ABC had refused to cooperate with the appellant’s team, the only proper course available to the broadcaster was to abandon the proposed telecast concerning the incident. Instead, disregarding her wishes, the appellant aired the programme.
The Court also held that the appellant had violated the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which prohibit disclosure of particulars that may lead to the identification of child victims of sexual assault unless justified by an overriding public interest. It found no such public interest in broadcasting details that enabled the victim’s identification.
The Bench noted that the programme disclosed the full name of the victim’s father, his official designation, the organisation where he worked, the victim’s age, the address board of the residential colony, photographs of the victim’s house and the pathway leading to it, besides telecasting ABC’s voice. These details, the Court held, made it easy to ascertain both the identity and residence of the child.
The Court held that the telecast was ex facie illegal, observing that it was squarely contrary to the principles governing the right to privacy laid down by the Supreme Court. Concluding the issue, the Division Bench held:
“
“We, therefore, uphold the view of the learned Single Judge that, by telecasting the injurious program on its Aaj Tak channel, the appellant blatantly violated the right to privacy of X.”
(iii) Whether the Single Judge was justified in awarding ₹5 lakh compensation?
The Court answered this issue in the affirmative, holding that the Single Judge rightly exercised writ jurisdiction to award public law compensation for violation of the child’s fundamental rights. It found no disputed questions of fact warranting relegation of the parties to a civil suit and upheld the award of ₹5 lakh. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench directed:
“
“While we would have been inclined to award reparative costs, given the nature of the present appeal, we decline from doing so. We direct, however, that the remaining amount, as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge, be paid by the appellant to ABC or to X within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment on the website of this Court. Failure to do so would entail interest, on the said amount, at the rate of 12% p.a. till the date of actual payment.”
Rejecting the appellant’s contention that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact warranting relegation to a civil suit, the Division Bench held that the issues raised, whether the child victim’s right to privacy had been violated and whether compensation could be awarded, had already been answered on the material before it and did not require a full-fledged trial. The Court observed that
“The right to privacy exists. 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.”
It further held that even if the mother had, at any stage, disclosed the child’s identity, “that would not provide a carte blanche to the rest of the world to go ahead and do likewise. The Bench concluded that no such disputed questions of fact arise in the present case, as would justify relegating the respondent to a civil suit.
In view of the above findings, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s judgment in its entirety. The matter is listed on August 12, 2026, for compliance.
