The Delhi High Court said Aaj Tak, “probably in the zeal of securing higher TRPs,” violated the privacy and confidentiality rights of a child sexual abuse survivor, while upholding a Rs.5 lakh compensation order against the broadcaster.
The Delhi High Court affirmed an order by a Single Judge directing TV Today Network Ltd., the operator of the Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, to pay Rs.5 lakh compensation for violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of a child sexual abuse survivor.
Dismissing TV Today Network Ltd.’s appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the broadcaster had blatantly violated the child’s fundamental right to privacy by airing enough particulars to identify her, even after the mother had refused to cooperate with the channel.
The Court directed the broadcaster to deposit the remaining compensation amount within four weeks. If the payment was not made within that period, the amount would carry 12% annual interest until full payment.
ALSO READ: Dangal vs Maha Dangal: Aaj Tak Drags ABP News to Court Over Show Name Clash
A key question before the Bench was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained against a private media organisation.
Rejecting the broadcaster’s argument, the Bench held that while TV Today Network Ltd. is not State under Article 12, it does perform a public function by disseminating news. Accordingly, it owes a public duty to ensure that constitutional rights are not infringed.
In this context, the Bench observed,
“In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to hold that the media… does not perform any public function.”
The Court further held that when a private body performs a public function, constitutional remedies under Article 226 remain available alongside ordinary civil remedies.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered in August 2005 alleging that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted by her father. After the FIR, the survivor’s mother had initially provided an interview to another television channel identifying her daughter. However, she later withdrew her consent before the interview was aired, and that request was honoured.
Later, an Aaj Tak crew visited the family’s residence seeking an interview.
When the mother refused permission and declined to speak to the reporters, the channel still aired a programme that included:
- the father’s full name,
- his official designation,
- his place of employment,
- the locality where the family lived,
- visuals of the family residence and surrounding area, and
- the mother’s voice.
The mother then approached the Delhi High Court, alleging that the broadcast disclosed sufficient details to identify the child survivor and therefore violated the child’s constitutional right to privacy.
The Division Bench sharply criticised the broadcaster’s approach, observing that commercial considerations appeared to have outweighed the rights of a child victim.
The Court noted that,
“This is a classic case in which, probably in the zeal of securing higher TRPs, a Nelson’s eye was turned to the rights of the child.”
It also described the conduct as deeply disturbing and said it reflected a woeful lack of understanding of fundamental rights.
The Court rejected the broadcaster’s submission that the incident predated the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It held that the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 exists independently of statutory protections. It also stated that once the mother refused to cooperate, the broadcaster should have abandoned the proposed telecast altogether.
The Bench also found that Aaj Tak violated the Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which bar disclosure of information capable of identifying child victims of sexual offences unless justified by overriding public interest.
Finding no such public interest, the Court held that the broadcast’s disclosure of multiple identifying details made it easy for viewers to determine the child’s identity and residence.
Accordingly, it upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion that the telecast had blatantly violated the right to privacy of the survivor.
The Court also upheld the award of Rs.5 lakh, stating that compensation for violation of fundamental rights could be an appropriate remedy through public law. Rejecting the argument that the dispute should be pursued only through a civil suit, the Bench held there were no disputed factual issues requiring a full trial.
It clarified that even if the mother had disclosed the child’s identity earlier, this would not give the media permission to disclose it later i.e., it did not provide the broadcaster with a carte blanche to do so.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench dismissed it in its entirety and directed compliance with the compensation order.
The matter is listed for compliance on August 12, 2026.
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. ABC & Ors.