Court Rules Writ Petition Maintainable Against Private Media for Breach of Fundamental Right to Privacy; Telecast Revealing Identity of Child Sexual Abuse Victim Deemed Illegal and Actionable
In a landmark judgment delivered on July 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that private media entities perform a public function and are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court further affirmed that the right to privacy, an integral facet of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, protects victims of sexual assault from disclosure of their identities, and violation of this right by media entities attracts constitutional liability including monetary compensation.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a minor girl (“X”) against her father (“P”) alleging sexual assault, under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite clear refusal of consent by the victim’s mother, ABC, a broadcast on the private news channel “Aaj Tak” disclosed particulars such as P’s name, designation, office address, and details sufficient to identify the victim, including visual footage of their residence and the voice of ABC. This telecast was held to constitute gross negligence and an illegal invasion of privacy.
ABC filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking injunctive relief and monetary compensation. The media house contended that as a private entity, it did not perform a public function and hence the writ petition was not maintainable. They also argued that the identity disclosure was permissible as the victim’s mother had earlier revealed details in an interview to another channel, and that the law (Section 228A IPC) did not prohibit disclosure in sexual assault cases under Sections 354 and 506 IPC at the time of telecast (2005).
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court extensively analyzed the scope of writ jurisdiction against private bodies and underscored that the press and media in a democracy discharge an essential public function by disseminating information and shaping public opinion. The Court relied on a plethora of Supreme Court precedents, including Andi Mukta Sadguru (1989), Zee Telefilms (2005), and Binny Ltd. (2005), which establish that writ petitions lie against private entities performing public functions or discharging public duties.
The Court emphasized that the right to privacy of sexual assault victims is protected even if the matter becomes part of public record, citing R. Rajagopal (1994) and norms issued by the Press Council of India (PCI). The telecast revealing the victim’s identity and related details was found to be a blatant violation of privacy and journalistic ethics. The Court noted that the media’s conduct displayed “prurient or morbid curiosity” and gross negligence by broadcasting without consent despite explicit refusal.
Importantly, the Court held that writ courts have jurisdiction to award monetary compensation for violation of fundamental rights by non-State actors, as recognized in recent Supreme Court decisions including Jane Kaushik (2026) and Kaushal Kishor (2023). The intangible harm caused by privacy violations warrants public law remedies in the form of damages. Consequently, a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs was awarded in favor of ABC and the victim.
Further, the Court clarified that disputed questions of fact do not bar writ jurisdiction when fundamental rights are involved, and alternate civil remedies do not preclude the exercise of writ powers. The decision reinforces the horizontal applicability of fundamental rights against private entities performing public functions, and the media’s duty to respect privacy rights in sensitive cases.
This judgment sends a strong message to media houses about the constitutional obligation to protect the identities of sexual assault victims and uphold journalistic ethics, balancing the freedom of speech with the right to privacy. It also affirms the Delhi High Court’s proactive role in safeguarding fundamental rights even against powerful private media corporations.
Bottom line:-
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private media company performing a public function, and violation of a victim's right to privacy by disclosure of identity in a sexual assault case attracts constitutional liability including compensation.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 354 IPC, Section 506 IPC, Section 228A IPC (discussed), Norms of Journalistic Conduct by Press Council of India (1996)
TV Today Network Limited v. ABC, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933112
