Delhi High Court upheld ₹5 lakh compensation against Aaj Tak for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor by airing identifying details
The Delhi High Court has upheld a Single Judge’s order directing TV Today Network Ltd., which operates the Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, to pay Rs.5 lakh compensation for violating the privacy and confidentiality of a child sexual abuse survivor, holding that media organisations perform a public function and are constitutionally obligated to protect fundamental rights.
Dismissing an appeal filed by TV Today Network Ltd., a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that the broadcaster had “blatantly violated” the child’s fundamental right to privacy by telecasting sufficient details to identify her despite the mother’s refusal to cooperate with the channel.
The Court directed the broadcaster to pay the remaining compensation amount within four weeks, failing which it would attract 12% annual interest until payment.
Media Performs a public function, Writ maintainable against Private News Channel
One of the principal issues before the Court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against a private media organisation.
Rejecting the broadcaster’s objection, the Bench held that although TV Today Network Ltd. is not “State” under Article 12, it performs the public function of disseminating news and, therefore, owes a corresponding public duty to ensure that constitutional rights are not infringed. The Court observed: “In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to hold that the media… does not perform any public function.”
The Bench held that where a private body discharges a public function, constitutional remedies under Article 226 remain available in addition to ordinary civil remedies.
Broadcast violated Child’s Right to Privacy
The case arose from an FIR registered in August 2005 alleging that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted by her father. Following the FIR, the child’s mother initially gave an interview to another television channel identifying her daughter but later withdrew her consent before the interview was aired. That request was honoured.
Subsequently, a crew from Aaj Tak visited the family’s residence seeking an interview. After the mother refused permission and declined to speak to the reporters, the channel nevertheless aired a programme revealing:
-the father’s full name,
-his official designation,
-his place of employment,
-the locality where the family lived,
-visuals of the family’s residence and surrounding area, and
-the mother’s voice.
The child’s mother then approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the broadcast disclosed sufficient particulars to identify the child survivor and violated her constitutional right to privacy.
Court criticises “TRP Driven” Journalism
The Division Bench strongly criticised the broadcaster’s conduct, observing that commercial considerations appeared to have taken precedence over the rights of a child victim. “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 the child,” the Court observed.
The Bench described the broadcaster’s conduct as “deeply disturbing” and said it reflected “a woeful lack of understanding of fundamental rights.”
Rejecting the argument that the incident predated the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 existed independently of statutory protections.
It further held that once the child’s mother refused to cooperate with the channel, the broadcaster ought to have abandoned the proposed telecast altogether.
Press Council norms also violated
The Court held that Aaj Tak had also violated the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which prohibit disclosure of details capable of identifying child victims of sexual offences unless justified by overriding public interest.
Finding no such public interest, the Bench held that the disclosure of multiple identifying details made it easy for viewers to ascertain the identity and residence of the child.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s finding that the telecast had “blatantly violated the right to privacy” of the survivor.
Rs. 5 Lakh Compensation Upheld
The Court also affirmed the award of Rs. 5 lakh compensation, holding that public law compensation was an appropriate remedy for violation of fundamental rights.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the matter should have been relegated to a civil suit, the Bench held that there were no disputed questions of fact requiring a full-fledged trial.
The Court clarified that even if the mother had disclosed the child’s identity at an earlier stage, it did not give the media a “carte blanche” to do the same. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench dismissed it in its entirety and directed compliance with the compensation order. The matter has been listed on August 12, 2026, for compliance.
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. ABC & Ors.
Bench: Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla
Judgment Date: July 1, 2026
Copyright @2026
Powered by Blink CMS
Leave a Reply