Media Or Govt Agencies Have No Right To Peep Into Private Lives Of Citizens Without Any Valid Reason: Kerala High Court Slams Online Media Channels

The Kerala High Court recently came down heavily on certain online media channels for broadcasting private moments of a woman and said it is disheartening to note that some online news channels "are in the habit of publishing sleaze more than news."

A single bench of Justice VG Arun while criticising the recent media trend of publishing private content of individuals in the name of news said:

“In my opinion, publication of another person's private moments for public viewing is, by itself, an offensive act, even if there is no law preventing such action. No person, whether it be the media or Governmental agencies, have the right to peep into the private lives of the citizens of this country, without there being a valid reason.”

The court pulled up certain media channels for publishing denigrating content only for the purpose of sensationalism.

The court opined that the media in certain cases was misusing its power as the fourth estate.

“Some online news channels are in the habit of publishing sleaze more than news. A section of the public also devours such sensational and salacious news. In the absence of any mechanism to curb the menace, it is for those channels to introspect and decide whether, by the action of a few, faith in the fourth estate, a powerful pillar of our democracy, is getting eroded”

The court was hearing the appeal filed by two media persons from an online channel named 'Bharath Live', accused of posting disparaging content against the complainant, with the knowledge that she belonged to the scheduled tribe community.

The appellants were booked under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 apart from several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, for publishing private moments of the complainant’s life and trying to portray her as a woman of "loose morals". The Special Court had denied anticipatory bail to the appellants and they had therefore approached the High Court in appeal.

The complainant had earlier filed a complaint against her former employer, T.P. Nandakumar, who runs the online news channel 'Crime Online'. Nandakumar was accused of compelling the complainant to videograph her nudity to create a morphed video of a female Minister of the State. Nandakumar was arrested in connection with the case.

The appellants are alleged to have published the private content of the complainant provoked by the arrest of TP Nandakumar, to mark their protest. The court in this regard said:

“The personnel vendetta of certain media personalities or their so-called crusade for truth and justice, are no excuse for impinging the privacy of citizens. Every individual is entitled to perform his actions in private. He or she has the right to carry out his/her activities in life without being spied upon”

Advocate I.V. Pramod appeared for the appellants, Advocate K. Nandini for the complainant and Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George appeared for the State.

The case of the complainant was that the abusive news item and related videos were published with the intent to denigrate the complainant and to portray the idea that the complainant was an immoral woman in the habit of frequently filing false cases.

The counsel for the appellants however argued that there were no abusive comments made in the news item and no inappropriate scenes from her private life were depicted.

Stressing on the need for taking extra precaution while publishing content in the digital age the court said:

“Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget. Therefore, any defamatory or abusive statement uploaded online will remain as a permanent scar on the affected person. Therefore, the online news channels have a duty to ascertain the veracity of the news before making disparaging remarks against individuals and publishing videos of their personal lives.”

The court refused to interfere with the order of the sessions court, as the Court was of the opinion that when appellants had knowledge that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Community, publication of news with the intention to insult or abuse her was sufficient to attract the provisions of the PoA Act.

The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the PoA Act (Section 438 of the Code does not apply to persons committing an offence under the Act) would apply and hence it refused to interfere with the order of the special court.

Case Title: Sumesh G.S @ Sumesh Marcopolo V State Of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

Click here to read/download judgment