Online channels publish sleaze more than news; media, government have no right to peep into citizens' private lives: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that no media person or government agency has the right to invade the private lives of citizens without a valid reason [Sumesh GS @ Sumesh Marcopolo & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.]..Justice VG Arun criticised the actions of certain media persons who he opined invade the privacy of persons by thinly veiling their personnel vendetta as a crusade for truth and justice "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 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", the Court said in its judgment.The single-judge also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in KS Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. in which the top court had warned about the permanent nature of content that is uploaded on the internet.However, a section of online media continue to publish sleaze more than news and a section of the public continue to devour it, the judge lamented while emphasising that online news channels have a duty to undertake due diligence before publishing such content."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. It is disheartening to note that, at least 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," the Court said..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.Kerala High Court.Justice Arun said that in his opinion, publishing a person's private lives for public viewing, is by itself, an offensive act even if there is no law in place at the moment to prevent such actions.Until such a law is enacted, he called on news channels to introspect and decide whether their actions are worth eroding the people's faith in the fourth estate. "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. To quote the Father of Our Nation; “The press is called the Fourth Estate. It is definitely a power, but, to misuse the power is criminal," the judgment stated. .The Court made the observations while considering an appeal moved by two media persons working for an online new channel called 'Bharath Live', against the the order of the Ernakulam Sessions Court denying them anticipatory bail.The two men are accused of having published news items containing disparaging remarks against the second respondent as well as her private videos. A case was registered with the police in which the appellants were accused of committing offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act and also the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST (POA) Act). The counsel for the appellants contended that the offences alleged would not be attracted by the appellants' actions. It was submitted that the news items were a mere expression of protest against the respondent-woman after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against her former employer who is also a media person..On the other hand, counsel for respondent-woman contended that the appellants included a private video of hers in the news item to depict her as an immoral lady who is in the habit of lodging false complaints. It was also pointed out that the contents of the news items would show that the appellants knew that the respondent belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. .The public prosecutor appearing for the State also objected to the grant of anticipatory bail..The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that a news item containing footage of private moments from the respondent-woman's private life were published on Bharat Live.Therefore, the question that the Court had to deal with was whether the publication of such a video would attract offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act..Apart from the Puttaswamy judgment, the Court relied on a 2022 judgment of another single-judge of the High Court in Sooraj V Sukumar v State of Kerala & Anr., in which it was held that abuses and insults made on an online platform against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract the offences under SC/ST (POA) Act..Justice VG concurred with the view adopted by the other single-judge and considering the specific allegations in the case, refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed. .The appellants were represented by advocates IV Pramod and Saira Souraj.The respondents were represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George and advocate K Nandini. .[Read Judgment]