Privacy , defamation; sting operation Under Media Law

Privacy , Defamation & Sting
operation
By Dr. Ashutosh kumar Strivastava
Assistant Professor
Law centre II
Faculty of Law
University of Delhi
Contact no :9079298265
Contact mail: legalsolutions01@gmail.com

Privacy
Privacy is a multi –faced concept briefly we can
described it as a right “ to be let alone “ .
Except in cases of celebrities and criminals they
either waive or forfeit this right sine privacy is an
issue in everyone’s life.

Term -Privacy
The rightful claim of the individual to determine
the extent to which he wishes to share himself
with others and his control over the time , place
and circumstances to communicate with others .
It means his right to withdraw or to participate as
he sees fit. It also means the individuals right to
control dissemination of information about
himself.

Term –Privacy-Liberty
Other defines privacy as a zero- relationship
between two or more person in the sense that
there is no interaction or communication between
them , if they so choose.
In US the need for a Law to protect privacy was
articulated as early as 1890, when an article titled
‘Right to Privacy “ was published by warran and
Brandeis
This article laid down the intellectual foundations

Privacy as a Right (concept)
1.Concept of Liberty and personal choice
2. Common Law origin of Right to Privacy
3. Constitutional Development OF Right to
privacy

1.Concept of Liberty and
personal choice
(CLASS-Discussion)
PERSONA
L CHOICE
LIBERTY
SOCIETY IS
ALWAYS
UNDER THE
OBLIGATION
Law
COURT
FREEDOM

ARTICLE-19. Protection of certain rights
regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have
the right
{WHICH DEFINE 6 KIND OF
FREEDOM }
(a) to
freedom
of
speech
and
expressi
on;
(b) to
assemble
peaceably
and without
arms;
(c) to form
association
s or unions
(g) to
practise any
profession,
or to carry
on any
occupation,
trade or
business
(d) to move
freely
throughout
the
territory of
India
(e) to reside
and settle in
any part of
the territory
of India; and

Three point discussion on
freedom/liberty & Right ( Class
discussion)
Under Article 19 freedom and its restriction both
are defined ie. 19 (1) and (2)
So the liberty under 19 is with restriction while
liberty under Article 21 is with intrinsic restriction
ie. Procedure establish by Law
So without establish procedure executive can’t
invade liberty.
The fundamental duties are restriction/
qualification on fundamental right,

Right to information and Privacy
concept
Point to be consider ...
1. Internet security & privacy
2. Employee privacy
3. Public camera & privacy

Evolution of the Law on
privacy in UK & US

2. -Common Law origin of Right to
Privacy
1. Albert (Prince) vs strange 1849, (Right to
privacy)
The unauthorised copying of etchings made by
queen victoria and her husband for their
private amusement
In England ,Law on Privacy took much longer to
evolve even as late in 1991,

Right to Privacy-US Development
1. In U.S. –Warren and brandeis written an
Article titled “ Right to privacy”-1890 , 4 Harv.
Law Review
2. This article established the intellectual
foundation for the Law on Privacy.
3. Further the American courts trace the origin of
Right to Privacy as being associated with Right
to Property.
4. Gradually the court recognised that the
protection of privacy must transcend property

Warden vs Heyden US, 1967
The police were informed that an armed robbery
had occurred and that the suspect, respondent,
had thereafter entered a certain house. Minutes
later they arrived there and were told by
respondent's wife that she had no objection to
their searching the house. Certain officers
arrested respondent in an upstairs bedroom when
it became clear he was the only man in the
house. Others simultaneously searched the first
floor and cellar. One found weapons in a flush

Ammunition was also found. These items were
admitted into evidence without objection at
respondent's trial which resulted in his conviction.
After unsuccessful state court proceedings
respondent sought and was denied habeas
corpus relief in the District Court. The Court of
Appeals found the search lawful, but reversed on
the ground that the clothing seized during the
search was immune from seizure, being of
"evidential value only."

We agree with the Court of Appeals that neither
the entry without warrant to search for the robber,
nor the search for him without warrant was
invalid. Under the circumstances of this case,
"the exigencies of the situation made that course
imperative." McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S.
451, 456. The police were informed that an
armed robbery had taken place, and that the
suspect had entered 2111 Cocoa Lane less than
five minutes before they reached it. They acted
reasonably when they entered the house and
began to search for a man of the description they

We come, then, to the question whether, even
though the search was lawful, the Court of Appeals
was correct in holding that the seizure and
introduction of the items of clothing violated the
Fourth Amendment because they are "mere
evidence." The distinction made by some of our
cases between seizure of items of evidential value
only and seizure of instrumentalities, fruits, or
contraband has been criticized by courts
The Fourth Amendment allows intrusions upon
privacy under these circumstances, and there is no
viable reason to distinguish intrusions to secure

Griswold vs Connecticut US, 1965
The Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the
use of contraceptives violated the right to marital
privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that
criminalized the encouragement or use of birth
control.
The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses
any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the
purposes of preventing conception shall be fined
not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less
than sixty days."
The law further provided that "any person who

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of
Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and
Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale
Medical School, were arrested and found guilty
as accessories to providing illegal contraception.
They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton
appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of
Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the
U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld
the conviction, and Griswold and Buxton

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written
by Justice William O. Douglas ruled that the law
violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not
be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas
contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees
have "penumbras," created by "emanations from
these guarantees that help give them life and
opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First
Amendment (free speech), Third
Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of
troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches
and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-

The right to privacy is "fundamental" when it
concerns the actions of married couples, because
it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied
without violating those fundamental principles of
liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil
and political institutions." Because a married
couple's use of contraception constitutes a
"fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to
the Court that its law is "compelling" and
"absolutely necessary" to overcome that right

Roe vs Wade, US, 1973.
The right of an unmarried pregnant woman to
terminate her pregnancy by abortion. The
relevant Texas law prohibited abortions except
with respect to those procured or admitted by
medical advice for the purpose of saving the life
of the mother. The constitutionality of, the said
law was questioned on the ground that the said
law improperly invaded the right and the choice of
a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy
and therefore violative of ‘liberty’ guaranteed

Roe vs Wade, US, 1973.
Blackmun, J. who delivered the majority opinion,
upheld the right to privacy
“The Constitution does not explicitly mention
any right of privacy. In a line of decisions,
however,. the Court has recognised that a
right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of
certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist
under the Constitution.”

Times, Inc. vs. Hill
The facts of the case are these: On a particular
day in the year 1952, three escaped convicts
intruded into the house of James Hill and held
him and members of his family hostage for
nineteen hours, whereafter they released them
unharmed. The police immediately went after the
culprits, two of whom were shot dead. The
incident became prime news in the local
newspapers and the members of the press
started swarming the Hill's home for an account

Unable to stop the siege of the press
correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away
place. Life magazine sent its men to the former
home of Hill family where they reenacted the
entire incident, and photographed it, showing
inter alia that the members of the family ill-treated
by the intruders. When Life published the story,
Hill brought a suit against Time Inc., publishers of
Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy

The New York Supreme Court found that the
whole story was “a piece of commercial fiction”
and not a true depiction of the event and
accordingly confirmed the award of damages.
However, when the matter was taken to United
States Supreme Court, it applied the rule evolved
by it in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and set
aside the award of damages holding that the jury
was not properly instructed in law.

The European Convention on
Human Rights, Article 8, dated 3-
9-1953,
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except
such as is
in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-
being of the country, for the prevention of

Blended Development of Privacy in
Modern Media
1. International Treaties and Privacy
2. Photographs
3. When Information in Public Domain
4. Disclosure in Public Interest

Development of Right to
privacy-India
The Right to privacy in India has Derived itself
from two sources
1. Common Law
2. Constitutional Law
Under common Law a Private action for damages
for unlawful privacy is maintainable

Common Law Development of
Right to privacy-India
The printer, publisher are liable in damages ,if
they publish any matter concerning the private life
of individual. , which would include his family ,
marriage procreation , parenthood, childbearing
education , etc. Without his consent.
There are two Exception to this rule
a. Right to privacy does not survive once the
publication is matter of public record.
b. Where the publication relates to discharge to
the official duties of public servant.

Development of Right to
privacy in India under
Constitutional Law
Surveillance Search & seizure

Khrak singh vs State of U.P
Indian Courts Under constitution of India
developed the Law of Privacy through series of
cases .
The petitioner, Kharak Singh, had been charged
with violent robbery as part of an armed gang in
1941. He was released due to lack of evidence,
but a ‘history sheet’ was opened in regard to him
under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.
These regulations provided for surveillance
powers, including powers of domiciliary visits, for

Based on these provisions, the police would often
visit Singh’s house at odd hours, waking him up
when he was sleeping. The petitioner argued that
these regulations were in violation of his right to
life with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, which includes the right to privacy.
He also argued that the measures violated
personal liberties guaranteed under Article 19 of
the Indian Constitution

 Regulation no.236 of UP Police regulation was
challenged , which permits Surveillanc,
A majority on the bench struck down regulation
236(b) which authorised domiciliary visit as
being unconstitutional
Minorty view by Subba Rao (J) laid the
foundation for the development of Law in India
, he said concept of Liberty in Article 21 is
comprehensive enough to include privacy. And

The Supreme Court of India declared the relevant
provisions that allowed police to make domiciliary
visits to ‘habitual criminals’ or individuals likely to
become habitual criminals as unconstitutional.

Govind vs. State of MP. & Anr on
18 March, 1975
The petitioner in a petition under Art. 32,
challenged the validity of Regulations 855 and
856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations
made by the Government under the Police Act
1961. Regulation 855 provides that where on
information the District Superintendent believes
that a particular individual is leading a life of
crime, and his conduct shows a determination to
lead a life of crime that individual's name may be
ordered to be entered in the surveillance register,

Govind vs. State of MP. & Anr on
18 March, 1975
Regulation 856 provides that such surveillance,
inter alia may consist of domiciliary visits both by
day and night at frequent but irregular intervals. It
was contended that,
(1) the Regulations were not framed under any
provision of the Police Act, and
(2) even if they were framed tinder sec. 46(2) of
the Police Act, the provisions regarding
domiciliary visits offended Article. 19(1)(d) and
21.

Malak singh vs State of P & H ,
1981
The Supreme Court observed that while the
prevention of crime was of utmost importance,
the means for prevention of crime must be within
the contours of the right to personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 and the right to
freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of
the Constitution. It attempted to balance the two
interests, holding that while it might be necessary
to habitual or potential offenders in order to
prevent organized crime, such surveillance could

People’ s Union for civil Liberties vs
Union of India , 1997,
The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL)
challenged the validity of a 1951 law, which
stated that political candidates were not bound to
disclose any information not required under the
law. The Court reasoned that the availability of
basic information about the candidates enables
voters to make an informed decision and also
paves the way for public debates on the merits
and demerits of candidates.

State of Maharastra vs Bharat
shanti Lal Shah, 2008.
This case adjudicated the constitutional validity of
the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,
1999 (MCOCA). MCOCA was challenged on the
grounds that the State Legislature did not have
the legislative competence to enact such a law,
and that certain provisions violated Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution.
The challenge was first brought before the
Bombay High Court, which upheld the
constitutional validity of Sections 2(d), (e) and (f),

District Registrar & collector vs
Canara bank, 2005
Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as
incorporated by Andhra Pradesh Act No. 17 of
1986, by amending the Central Act in its
application to the State, has been struck down by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as ultra vires
the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as also
of Article 14 of the Constitution. The District
Registrar and Collector, Registration and Stamps
Department, Hyderabad and the Assistant
Registrar have come up in appeal by special

RamJeth Malani vs union of India ,
2011
This case dealt with the issue of State failures in
tackling corruption, offshore storage of funds and
tax evasion. The Petitioners, a group of noted
professionals, brought to the Court’s attention
several media reports that mentioned siphoning
off of unaccounted monies by nationals and legal
entities of India to tax havens with strong secrecy
laws.

RamJeth Malani vs union of India ,
2011
The Court observed that creating exceptions on
the fly and violating the right to privacy of law-
abiding citizens could not be permitted to facilitate
investigations and prosecutions, noting that the
exercise of rights under Article 32 would need to
be balanced with rights provided for under Article
21. Therefore, the Court exempted the
Respondent from revealing the names of those
individuals against whom investigations or
proceedings remained pending and directed

Amar Singh vs Union of India ,
2011
The case arose when the Petitioner came to be
informed that his telephone conversations were
being recorded by his telecom service provider at
the behest of the Government of NCT of Delhi. ...
The Court observed that such unlawful
interception of phone conversations amounted to
a gross violation of the right to privacy.

R.Rajagopala vs State of Tamil Nadu,
october, 1994
Facts
first petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher
of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran,
published from Madras.
The second petitioner is the associate editor of
the magazine.
They are seeking issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India ,

october, 1994
Respondents, are as follows :
(1) State of Tamil Nadu represented by the
Secretary, Home Department,
(2) Inspector General of Prisons, Madras and
(3) Superintendent of Prisons (Central Prison),
Salem, Tamil Nadu from taking any action as
contemplated in the second respondent's
communication dated 15-6-1994 and further
restraining them from interfering with the publication
of the autobiography of the condemned prisoner,

october, 1994
Shankar @ Gauri Shankar @ Auto Shankar was
charged and tried for as many as six murders. He
was convicted and sentenced to death by the
learned Sessions Judge, Chenglepat on 31-5-
1991 which was confirmed by the Madras High
Court on 17-7-1992. His appeal to this Court was
dismissed on 5-4- 1994. It is stated that his mercy
petition to the President of India is pending
consideration.

october, 1994
Auto Shankar wrote his autobiography running into 300
pages while confined in Chenglepat sub-jail during the
year 1991. The autobiography was handed over by him
to his wife, Smt Jagdishwari, with the knowledge and
approval of the jail authorities, for being delivered to his
advocate, Shri Chandrasekharan. The prisoner
requested his advocate to ensure that his autobiography
is published in the petitioners’ magazine, Nakkheeran.
The petitioners agreed to the same.
Auto Shankar affirmed this desire in several letters
written to his advocate and the first petitioner. The

October, 1994
The presence of several such officers at the
house-warming ceremony of Auto Shankar’s
house is proved by the video cassette and
several photographs taken on the occasion.
Before commencing the serial publication of the
autobiography in their magazine, the petitioners
announced in the issue dated 21-5-1994 that very
soon the magazine would be coming out with the
sensational life history of Auto Shankar.
This announcement sent shock waves among
several police and prison officials who were afraid
that their links with the condemned prisoner
would be exposed.

october, 1994
They forced the said prisoner, by applying third
degree methods, to write letters addressed to the
second respondent (Inspector General of
Prisons) and the first petitioner requesting that his
life story should not be published in the
magazine.
the Inspector General of Prisons (R-2) wrote the
impugned letter dated 15-6-1994 to the first
petitioner. The letter states that the petitioner's
assertion that Auto Shankar had written his
autobiography while confined in jail in the year

october, 1994
The prisoner has himself denied the writing of any
such book. It is equally false that any power of
attorney was executed by the said prisoner in
favour of his advocate, Shri Chandrasekharan in
connection with the publication of the alleged
book.
If a prisoner has to execute a power of attorney in
favour of another, it has to be done in the
presence of the prison officials as required by the
prison rules; the prison records do not bear out

october, 1994
It is clearly established that the serial in your
magazine under the caption ‘Shadowed Truth’ or
‘Auto Shankar’s dying declaration’ is not really
written by Gauri Shankar but it is written by
someone else in his name. Writing an article in a
magazine in the name of a condemned prisoner
is against prison rules and your claim that the
power of attorney is given by the prisoner is
unlawful.

October, 1994
Neither Auto Shankar nor his wife nor his counsel
are made parties to this writ petition. We do not
have their version on the disputed question of
fact,

october, 1994
following questions arise:
(1)Whether a citizen of this country can prevent
another person from writing his life story or
biography? Does such unauthorised writing
infringe the citizen's right to privacy?

October, 1994
(2) (a) Whether the Government can maintain an
action for its defamation?
(b) Whether the Government has any legal
authority to impose prior restraint on the press to
prevent publication of material defamatory of its
officials? And
(c) Whether the public officials, who apprehend
that they or their colleagues may be defamed,
can impose a prior restraint upon the press to
prevent such publication?

October, 1994
(3) Whether the prison officials can prevent the
publication of the life story of a prisoner on the
ground that the prisoner being incarcerated and
thus not being in a position to adopt legal
remedies to protect his rights, they are entitled to
act on his behalf?

October, 1994
The right to privacy as an independent and
distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort
law, under which a new cause of action for
damages resulting from unlawful invasion of
privacy was recognised.
This right has two aspects which are but two
faces of the same coin (1) the general law of
privacy which affords a tort action for damages
resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and
(2) the constitutional recognition given to the right

October, 1994
The first aspect of this right must be said to have
been violated where, for example, a person's
name or likeness is used, without his consent, for
advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that
matter, his life story is written whether laudatory
or otherwise and published without his consent as
explained hereinafter.
In recent times, however, this right has acquired a
constitutional status. We shall proceed to explain
how? Right to privacy is not enumerated as a

October, 1994
The first decision of this Court dealing with this
aspect is Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. A more
elaborate appraisal of this right took place in a
later decision in Gobind v. State of M.P 1 (1964) 1
SCR 332: AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ
329, wherein Mathew, J. speaking for himself,
Krishna Iyer and Goswami, JJ. traced the origins
of this right and also pointed out how the said
right has been dealt with by the United States
Supreme Court in two of its well known decisions

October, 1994
the learned Judge stated the law in the following
words: (SCC pp. 155-57, paras 22-29) “ privacy-
dignity claims deserve to be examined with care
and to be denied only when an important
countervailing interest is shown to be superior

october, 1994
here is nothing to prevent one from using the
word 'privacy' to mean the freedom to live one's
life without governmental interference. But the
Court obviously does not so use the term. Nor
could it, for such a right is at stake in every case.
There are two possible theories for protecting
privacy of home. The first is that activities in the
home harm others only to the extent that they
cause offence resulting from the mere thought
that individuals might be engaging in such

october, 1994
The second is that individuals need a place of
sanctuary where they can be free from societal
control. The importance of such a sanctuary is
that individuals can drop the mask, desist for a
while from projecting on the world the image they
want to be accepted

october, 1994
petitioners have a right to publish, what they
allege to be the life story/autobiography of Auto
Shankar insofar as it appears from the public
records, even without his consent or
authorisation. But if they go beyond that and
publish his life story, they may be invading his
right to privacy and will be liable for the
consequences in accordance with law. Similarly,
the State or its officials cannot prevent or
restrain the said publication. The remedy of the

R.Rajagopala vs State of Tamil
Nadu,
october, 1994
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the
above terms. No costs.
(PERSONAL ) = PROTECTED – 4 WALL
PROTECTION
NO= ME TOO MOVEMENT =
CASE –INV. REPORT –CHARGE SHEET –
RIGHT TO BE FORGEETON

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of
India, 2017
A retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy filed
a petition in 2012 against the Union of India
before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court
challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar
because it is violating the right to privacy which
had been established on reference from the
Constitution Bench to determine whether or not
the right to privacy was guaranteed as an
independent fundamental right under the
constitution of India following past decisions from

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
vs. Union of India, 2017
Issues:
1. Whether or not there is any fundamental right
of privacy under the Constitution of India?
2. Whether or not the decision made by the Court
that there are no such fundamental rights in M.P.
Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi &
Ors. and also, in Kharak Singh vs. The State of
U.P, is that the correct expression of the
constitutional position?

Petitioner’s Argument
• It was argued from the side of the petitioner
before the court is that the right to privacy is an
intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and
same is to be protected by the constitution of
India.
• It was also put forward to evaluate the
correctness of the decision noted in Karak Singh

Respondent’s Argument
• It was argued from the side of the defendant
that the constitution of India does not specifically
protect the Right to privacy and on this ground
that the right of privacy was not guaranteed under
the Constitution, and hence Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution (the right to life and personal
liberty) had no application in the case of both M.
P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra and Karak Singh
vs. State of UP.

Analysis by court
1. Privacy Concerns Against state and Non-State
Actors.
It was held that the claim of protection of privacy can
be against both state and non- state actors as the
danger in the age of technological development can
originate not only from the state but from the non-
state entities as well.
2. Informational Privacy (Not an absolute right).
It was held that Informational privacy is an aspect of
the right to privacy. The right of an individual to
exercise control over his data and to be able to
control his/her existence on the internet and
unauthorized use of such information may, therefore,
lead to violation of this right.

Judgment, passed by 9 judges bench 0n
24 August 2017
The privacy is to be an integral component of Part
III of the Indian Constitution, which lays down the
fundamental rights of the citizens. The Supreme
Court also stated that “the state must carefully
balance the individual privacy and the legitimate
aim, at any cost as fundamental rights cannot be
given or taken away by law, and all laws and Acts
must abide by the constitution”. The Court also
declared that the right to privacy is not an
absolute right and any invasion of privacy by
state or non-state actor must satisfy the triple
test i.e.

Judgment
(i) The decision in M P Sharma vs. Satish
Chandra which holds that the right to privacy is
not protected by the Constitution of India stands
over-ruled;
(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP
to the degree that it holds that the right to privacy
is not protected by the Constitution also stands
over-ruled;
(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic
part of the right to life and personal liberty under

Data Protection & Privacy
Efforts of European union
 In the European Union (EU), the right to be
forgotten empowers individuals to ask
organisations to delete their personal data. It is
provided by the EU’s General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR), a law passed by the 28-
member bloc in 2018.

Data Protection & Privacy
The “right to be forgotten” gained prominence
when the matter was referred to the Court of
Justice of European Union (CJEC) in 2014 by a
Spanish Court
Case facts : one Mario Costeja González
disputed that the Google search results for his
name continued to show results leading to an
auction notice of his reposed home. González
said that the fact that Google continued to show
these in its search results related to him was a
breach of his privacy.

Personal Data Protection Bill
( Right to be Forgotten)
The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced
in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019 and it aims
to set out provisions meant for the protection of
the personal data of individuals.
Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft bill titled
“Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to
be Forgotten.” It states that the “data principal
(the person to whom the data is related) shall
have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing
disclosure of his personal data by a data

Right to be Forgotten
View of central government : Right to be
Forgotten comes under the Right to privacy.
 Right to privacy is established by K.S.
Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 2017
8 pending cases for claiming right to be
forgotten
Ashutosh kushik’s case
Cases related to me too movement
Etc.

DEFAMATION
&
public figure
Reputation
Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian
Express Ltd., 16 January, 2014

DEFAMATION
The Publication of statement which tends to
lower a person in the estimation of right thinking
member of society generally , or which tends to
make them shun or avoid that person ( under
Law of Torts )
1. statement must be defamatory
2. Statement must be for defendant
3. Statement must be publish (convey)
4. In result plaintiff’s reputation must be injured.
A x y
z
f
c d
e

DEFAMATION
Libel- it is a kind of defamation that is present in
some permanent form such as in writing, printed
or a picture.
Slander- it is a kind of defamation that is present
in an unwritten form such as spoken words,
gestures or representation made with hands.

Defamation under criminal Law
499 IPC - Defamation:
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning
any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to
defame that person.

Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian
Express Ltd., 16 January, 2014
Public figure vs general

Sting Operation By Media
Serving A Public Cause

R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High
Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
(discussion )
A vs state(B )
1.Police –investigation – investigative
journalism
2. judicial officer – Inquiry media trial
Sting operation
Red handed

R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi
High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
The present is a fall out from a criminal trial
arising from a hit and run accident on a cold
winter morning in Delhi in which a car travelling at
reckless speed crashed through a police check
post and crushed to death six people, including
three policemen. Facing the trial, as the main
accused, was a young person called Sanjeev
Nanda coming from a very wealthy business
family. According to the prosecution, the accident
was caused by Sanjeev Nanda who, in an

It was not proceeding very satisfactorily at all
from the point of view of the prosecution. The
status of the main accused coupled with the flip-
flop of the prosecution witnesses evoked
considerable media attention and public interest.
To the people who watch TV and read
newspapers it was yet another case that was
destined to end up in a fiasco. It was in this
background that a well known English language
news channel called New Delhi Television

New Delhi Television (NDTV) telecast a
programme on May 30, 2007 in which one Sunil
Kulkarni was shown meeting with IU Khan, the
Special Public Prosecutor and RK Anand, the
Senior Defence Counsel (and two others) and
negotiating for his sell out in favour of the defence
for a very high price. Kulkarni was at one time
considered the most valuable witness for the
prosecution but afterwards, at an early stage in
the trial, he was dropped by the prosecution as

Nearly eight years later, the trial court had
summoned him to appear and give his testimony
as a court witness. The telecast came a few
weeks after the court order and even as his
evidence in the trial was going on. According to
NDTV, the programme was based on a
clandestine operation carried out by means of a
concealed camera with Kulkarni acting as the
mole. What appeared in the telecast was
outrageous and tended to confirm the cynical but
widely held belief that in this country the rich and

Shocked by the programme the Delhi High Court suo
moto initiated a proceeding [Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.796 of 2007]. It called for from the news channel
all the materials on which the telecast was based
and after examining those materials issued show
cause notices to RK Anand, IU Khan and Bhagwan
Sharma, an associate advocate with RK Anand why
they should not be convicted and punished for
committing criminal contempt of court as defined
under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. (In
the sting operations there was another person called

On considering their show cause and after hearing
the parties the High Court expressed its displeasure
over the role of Bhagwan Sharma but acquitted him
of the charge of contempt of court. As regards RK
Anand and IU Khan, however, the High Court found
and held that their acts squarely fell within the
definition of contempt under clauses (ii) & (iii) of
section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It,
accordingly, held them guilty of committing contempt
of Court vide judgment and order dated August 21,
2008 and in exercise of power under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India prohibited them, by way of

The two appeals by RK Anand and IU Khan
respectively are filed under section 19 (1) of the
Contempt of Courts Act against the judgment and
order passed by the Delhi High Court.

MEDIA INTERVENTION:
April 28, 2007 Kulkarni along with one Deepak
Verma of NDTV went to meet IU Khan in the
Patiala House court premises.
Poonam Agarwal headed all string operation with
his team, against IU Khan and R.K. Anand, and
others.

THE TELECAST:
Based on the sting operations NDTV telecast a
programme called India 60 Minutes (BMW
Special) on May 30, 2007 at 8.00 p.m.
It was followed at 9.00 pm, normally reserved for
news, as `BMW Special'. From a purely
journalistic point of view it was a brilliant
programme designed to have the greatest impact
on the viewers.

SOME OF THE ISSUES ARISING IN THE CASE:
1. Whether the conviction of the two appellants
for committing criminal contempt of court is
justified and sustainable?
2. Whether the procedure adopted by the High
Court in the contempt proceedings was fair
and reasonable, causing no prejudice to the
two appellants?
3. Whether it was open to the High Court to
prohibit the appellants from appearing before
the High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to it

4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the punishments awarded to the appellants
can be said to be adequate and commensurate to
their misdeeds?
5. The role of NDTV in carrying out sting
operations and telecasting the programme based
on the sting materials in regard to a criminal trial
that was going on before the court.
6. The declining professional standards among
lawyers, and

Nature of Contempt Proceeding
Learned counsel (for Appellant RK Anand)
pointed out that at the threshold of the
proceeding, started suo moto, the High Court,
instead of taking the microchips used for the sting
operations in its custody directed NDTV ‘to
preserve the original material including the
CDs/Video’ pertaining to the sting operations and
to submit to the Court copies and transcripts
made from those chips.

The petition filed by RK Anand for directing NDTV
to submit the original microchips before the Court
and to give him copies made in Court directly
from those chips remained lying on the record
unattended till it was rejected by the final
judgment and order passed in the case. Another
petition requesting to send the microchips for
forensic examination also met with the same fate.

Sting programme whether trial by
media
one, the sting programme telecast by NDTV was
of the genre, ‘trial by media’ and two, the
programme interfered or tended to interfere with
or obstructed or tended to obstruct the
proceedings of the BMW trial that was going on at
the time of the telecast.

STINGS & TELECAST OF STING
PROGRAMMES SERVED IMPORTANT
PUBLIC CAUSE
To allow the attempt to suborn a witness, with the
object to undermine a criminal trial, lie quietly
behind the veil of secrecy or to bring out the
mischief in full public gaze? To our mind the
answer is obvious. The sting telecast by NDTV
was indeed in larger public interest and it served
an important public cause.

In light of the discussions made
above we pass the following orders
and directions.
1. The appeal filed by IU Khan is allowed and his
conviction for criminal contempt is set aside. The
period of four month's prohibition from appearing
in Delhi High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to
it is already over. The punishment of fine given to
him by the High Court is set aside. The Full Court
of the Delhi High Court may still consider whether
or not to continue the honour of Senior Advocate
conferred on him in light of the findings recorded
in this judgment.

In light of the discussions made
above we pass the following orders
and directions.
2. The appeal of RK Anand is dismissed subject
to the notice of enhancement of punishment
issued to him as indicated in paragraph 165 of
the judgment. He is allowed eight weeks time
from the date of service of notice for filing his
show-cause.
3. Those of the High Courts which have so far
not framed any rules under section 34 of the
Advocates Act, shall frame appropriate rules
without any further delay as directed in paragraph

Sting operations
Due to technological advancement media is
rapidly revolutionised
This media revolution turned media into a bit of
unruly horses now
Mobile phone, smart phones CCTV are blurring
the boundries between the private and public
domain.
Secret cameras have faciliated investigative
journalism through sting operations.
A sting operation is a deceptive operation

Sting operations
Sting operations have proved extremely effective
in exposing corruption and crime or acts done
behind closed door rarely comes into light .
1. Tehelka
2. Operation west end
3. Operation Duryodhana
4. Many others afterwards
Tehelka
Operatio
n west
end
Operation
Duryodhana

COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION VS
STATE
( UMA KHURANA CASE )
Several guidelines are provided by court for sting
operations
1. A channel proposing to telecast a sting
operation shall obtain a certificate from the
person who recorded or produced the same
certifying that the operation is genuine to his
knowledge.
2. There must be concurrent record in writing of
the various stages of the sting operation.

Guidlines under uma khurana
case for sting operation
3. Permission for telecasting a sting operation be
obtained from a committee appointed by the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The
said committee will be headed by a retired High
Court Judge to be appointed by the Government
in consultation with the High Court & two
members, one of which should be a person not
below the rank of Additional Secretary and the
second one being the Additional Commissioner of
Police.

4. While the transcript of the recordings may be
edited, the films and tapes themselves should not
be edited. Both edited and unedited tapes be
produced before the committee.
5. Sting operation shown on TV or published in
print media should be scheduled with an
awareness of the likely audience/reader in mind.
Great care and sensitivity should be exercised to
avoid shocking or offending the audience.

6.All television channels must ensure compliance
with the Certification Rules prescribed under
the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act
1995 and the Rules made there under.
7. The Chief Editor of the channel shall be made
responsible for self regulation and ensure that the
programmes are consistent with the Rules and
comply with all other legal and administrative
requirements under various statutes in respect of
content broadcast on the channel.

8. The subject matter of reports or current events
shall not:
(a) Deliberately present as true any unverified or
inaccurate facts so as to avoid trial by media
since a "man is innocent till proven guilty by law";
(b) Present facts and views in such a manner as
is likely to mislead the public about their factual
inaccuracy or veracity;
(c) Mislead the public by mixing facts and fiction

(d) Present a distorted picture of reality by over-
emphasizing or under-playing certain aspects that
may trivialise or sensationalise the content;
(e) Make public any activities or material relating
to an individual's personal or private affairs or
which invades an individual's privacy unless there
is an identifiable large public interest;
(f) Create public panic or unnecessary alarm
which is likely to encourage or incite the public to
crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public

Sting operations
So the sting operation is only allowed for public
causes under procedural guidelines,
Sting operation is invasion into privacy of a
citizen which is fundamental right of a citizen, so
that always be careful the you need to prove that
how it is serving public causes.
Class discussion..... On investigative
journalism , Leveson report
................

Privacy , defamation; sting operation Under Media Law

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Privacy , defamation; sting operation Under Media Law

Similar to Privacy , defamation; sting operation Under Media Law (11)

More from Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava

More from Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Privacy , defamation; sting operation Under Media Law

Editor's Notes