Media’s ‘public function’: How Delhi HC verdict impacts press freedom
Media’s ‘public function’: How Delhi HC verdict impacts press freedom
Publish Date: 2026-07-06 05:21:00
Source Domain: indianexpress.com
Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution have traditionally been viewed as a shield for citizens against the State. However, a judgment by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 1) extended the “horizontal application” of these rights, ruling that private media houses perform a “public function” and can be taken to a High Court for violating an individual’s right to privacy.
A two-judge bench of the High Court upheld a single-judge’s order from 2013 directing TV Today Network to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation for broadcasting details that could identify a minor victim of sexual assault. The judgment, authored by Justice C Hari Shankar on behalf of himself and Justice O P Shukla, laid down legal principles that carry implications for press freedom, the right to privacy, and the avenues through which citizens can sue the media.
The case and the legal question
The case dates back to August 2005, when a woman filed a police complaint accusing her husband of sexually assaulting their minor daughter. Despite the mother explicitly refusing to interact with a visiting television crew from the news channel Aaj Tak, the network broadcast a segment that disclosed the father’s name, his official designation, the colony’s address board, visuals of the house, and the mother’s voice. The mother subsequently filed a writ petition against the channel before the High Court.
The main legal question before the High Court was whether a writ petition could be filed against a private television channel.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other legal right against the State or authorities discharging public duties.
Media as a ‘public functionary’
The court ruled that the media, even when privately owned, discharges a “public function”. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, it reasoned that the media’s role in disseminating news…
