The Kerala High Court, in a recent order, came down hard on certain online media outlets for publishing the private moments of an individual and observed that publishing another person's private moments for public viewing is, by itself, an offensive act, and that the personal vendetta of certain media personalities are no excuse for impinging the privacy of citizens. Justice VG Arun was hearing an appeal filed by two mediapersons who were accused of publishing disparaging content against the complainant woman. The woman also alleged that this was done with the knowledge that she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community.
The case pertains to Kerala journalist TP Nandakumar, also called ‘Crime’ Nandakumar being arrested for verbally abusing a former woman employee and allegedly forcing her to make a fake vulgar video on Kerala Health Minister (Veena George). He was arrested based on the employee’s complaint. Soon after his arrest, Sumesh GS alias Sumesh Marcopolo and Sudersh Kumar K alias Sudersh Naboothiri - working in an online channel 'Bharath Live' - had published a news on June 18, 2022, containing disparaging remarks against the woman, picturising her as a lady of loose morals. In the news video, the woman’s private videos were published where she was inappropriately dressed.
Based on her complaint against both of them, the Infopark Police in Kochi booked them under Sections 354A(1)(iii) (showing pornography against the will of a woman), 354A (iv) (making sexually coloured remarks) of Indian Penal Code, Sections 66E (punishment for violation of privacy) and 67A (punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc in electronic form) of Information Technology Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (PoA Act). Section 3 deals with punishments for offences and atrocities. The duo had moved the Sessions Court, Ernakulam for anticipatory bail, but were rejected, following which they filed an appeal at the HC.
“The idea behind the news stories was to depict [her] as an immoral lady, who is in the habit of filing false complaints. The conversation between TP Nandakumar and a DySP, which is included in the news item, is sufficient proof that [they] knew that [she] belongs to a Scheduled Tribe,” the counsel for the woman K Nandini argued at the HC, and added that the news was published with the intent to denigrate the women.
However, Advocate IV Pramod who appeared for the accused argued that the news was “an expression of protest against the false implication of TP Nandakumar and a revelation of the atrocities committed against him” by the woman. He also contended that “protest by the press/media against the atrocious acts” of the woman will not attract offences under the PoA Act, and sought for a pre-arrest bail.
Observing the fact that a news was published with video footage of private moments from the woman’s personal life, Justice Arun said that the question was whether publication of such video content would attract offences under the PoA Act. “In my opinion, publication of another person's private moments for public viewing is, by itself, an offensive act, even if there is no law preventing such action. 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 personal vendetta of certain media personalities or their so-called crusade for truth and justice, are no excuse for impinging the privacy of citizens,” he said and added that everyone has the right to carry out their activities in life without being spied upon.
Stating that the impact of the digital age results in information on the internet being permanent, he said that while humans forget, the internet does not forget and that it also does not let humans forget. “Therefore, any defamatory or abusive statement uploaded online will remain as a permanent scar on the affected person. 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.”
Further, he also observed that some online news channels publish “sleaze more than news”, and that a section of the public “devour such sensational and salacious news”. “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.”
Taking note of the fact that the specific news was published with the knowledge that the woman belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community, the court said that publication of news and videos containing scenes intended to insult or abuse the person will attract offences under the PoA Act, and dismissed their appeal.