MEDIA’S ‘PUBLIC FUNCTION’: DELHI HC VERDICT ON PRESS FREEDOM & PRIVACY

Why in the News?

●  Delhi HC Ruling: The Delhi High Court held that private media houses perform a public function, allowing writ petitions against them for violating the fundamental right to privacy.

●  Significance: The judgment expands the horizontal application of fundamental rights, with important implications for press freedom, privacy, and constitutional remedies, similar to how constitutional amendments in various democracies have evolved to protect individual liberties against both state and non-state actors.

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT

●  Case Background: The Court upheld compensation against a television network for revealing identifying details of a minor sexual assault victim, holding that such reporting violated the victim’s right to privacy and constituted discriminatory practices that could lead to social stigmatization.

●  Public Function: The Court ruled that private media organisations perform a public function by disseminating information and shaping public opinion, thereby carrying a corresponding public duty, much like how institutions subject to heightened scrutiny in other democracies must balance their powers with responsibilities.

●  Horizontal Rights: Relying on the 2023 Kaushal Kishor judgment, the Court recognised the horizontal application of the right to privacy, enabling enforcement of certain fundamental rights against private entities, a principle that evolved globally after movements like the civil rights movement expanded constitutional protections.

●  Constitutional Remedy: The judgment permits individuals to invoke Article 226 before High Courts against private media houses where their constitutional rights are violated, instead of relying solely on civil remedies, applying standards comparable to strict scrutiny used in fundamental rights jurisprudence.

●  Potential Concerns: Legal experts cautioned that the ruling may encourage privacy-based litigation, potentially creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism if public interest is not carefully balanced, avoiding the kind of disenfranchisement of press freedom that could undermine democratic accountability.

HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

●  Meaning: Horizontal application allows fundamental rights to be enforced against private individuals or entities, unlike the traditional vertical application against the State, representing an evolution in constitutional law similar to post-civil war reconstruction amendments that expanded rights protection.

●  Judicial Basis: The principle gained constitutional recognition through the 2023 Kaushal Kishor judgment, where the Supreme Court held that certain fundamental rights can operate horizontally, applying rational basis scrutiny to determine when private entities exercise sufficient public power.

●  Scope: Rights relating to privacy, dignity, equality, and protection against discrimination may, in appropriate cases, be enforceable against non-State actors performing public functions, preventing discriminatory practices and racial discrimination in both public and private spheres.

●  Significance: It strengthens constitutional protection by ensuring that private entities exercising significant public influence also remain accountable for respecting individual rights, drawing from international precedents including the civil rights act framework that addressed private sector discrimination.

●  Challenges: Courts must carefully balance privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and public interest to avoid excessive restrictions on democratic institutions, ensuring that constitutional protections don’t create unintended barriers similar to historical grandfather clauses or other restrictive mechanisms.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY (ARTICLE 21) ●  Constitutional Status: The Right to Privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by the Supreme Court in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, establishing protections comparable to the equal protection clause and fourteenth amendment jurisprudence in other constitutional democracies. ●  Scope: It protects personal autonomy, dignity, bodily integrity, informational privacy, and decisional freedom, while permitting reasonable restrictions based on legality, necessity, and proportionality, applying standards of strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are at stake. ●  Balancing Rights: Privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against competing constitutional values such as freedom of speech, public interest, national security, and administration of justice, ensuring that restrictions don’t amount to disenfranchisement of other constitutional rights. ●  Media Responsibility: Journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) carries corresponding responsibilities, particularly in matters involving children, victims of sexual offences, and sensitive personal information, preventing discriminatory practices that could cause lasting harm to vulnerable populations. ●  UPSC Relevance: Important for GS Paper II – Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Right to Privacy, Media Ethics, and Governance.