"#$ %&''())(&* &+ ,*-(#.

/(*-0)1#* 2('3) /&0)3.

45
16
78&&9. :#)109;# <#*-6( =#9>.
?3$ @386(A44B BB4C


Beai Sii oi Nauam:

D3E D3)F&*)3) 1& 163 %&*)081#1(&* G#F39 &* =3-(# "#$

We aie giateful to the Law Commission foi making available its consultation papei on
meuia laws foi public comments. We founu the consultation papei anu the questions poseu
to be insightful anu timely. 0n behalf of oui oiganization Alteinative Law Foium, we woulu
like to iesponu to foui of the issues iuentifieu namely:

a. Regulation of Cioss Neuia 0wneiship
b. Neuia anu Piiacy
c. Befamation
u. Tiial by meuia

The Alteinative Law Foium is a collective of lawyeis anu ieseaicheis who woik on vaiious
issues of public inteiest. We have also been woiking anu teaching in the aiea of meuia laws
foi a numbei of yeais, anu have in the past been pait of expeit gioups constituteu by the
goveinment, assisteu in policy oiienteu ieseaich anu also maue submissions on a numbei
of issues of public impoitance.

We hope you will take some of oui iecommenuations into account

Foi Alteinative Law Foium


Lawience Liang Namita Nalhotia Banish Sheikh Smaiika Kumai



,C D3>08#1(&* &+ %9&)) H&*19&8I &$*39)6(F &+ =3-(#

4C J#K ,) 16393 # H0993*1 *33- +&9 93)19(H1(&*) &* H9&)) H&*19&8I&$*39)6(F #H9&)) 163
'3-(# )3H1&9L
M3), theie is a neeu foi iestiictions on cioss contiolowneiship acioss the meuia sectoi,
because the cuiient legal fiamewoik is not auequate to auuiess issues of meuia
concentiation which affect pluiality in meuia anu consequently the constitutional iight to
fieeuom of speech anu expiession.

G809#8(1N (* '3-(# -03 1& -(O39)3 &$*39)6(F () #* 3))3*1(#8 H&'F&*3*1 &+ &09 9(>61 1&
+933-&' &+ )F33H6 #*- 3PF93))(&* 0*-39 Q91(H83 4RJ4KJ#K

The Supieme Couit in !"#$"%&$' v. ($)#*"% ,--.#)&%)./ .0 1"/2&3
4
has helu that the
monopolisation of meuia in hanus of few entities can seive as a seiious bieach to the
citizen's iight to fieeuom of speech anu expiession unuei Aiticle 19(1)(a). It saiu:
"5" 67-% &3-. 8"&$ )/ 6)/9 %:&% %:" .83)2&%)./ .0 %:" !%&%" %. "/-7$" %:)- $)2:% %. &33
%:" #)%);"/- .0 %:" #.7/%$' #$"&%"- &/ .83)2&%)./ 7<./ )% %. "/-7$" %:&% %:"
8$.&9#&-%)/2 6"9)& )- /.% 6./.<.3)-"9= 9.6)/&%"9 .$ :)>&#*"9 8' <$)?)3"2"9= $)#: &/9
<.@"$073 )/%"$"-%-A !7#: 6./.<.3)-&%)./ .$ 9.6)/&%)./ #&//.% 87% 8" <$">79)#)&3 %.
%:" 0$""9.6 .0 -<""#: &/9 "B<$"--)./ .0 %:" #)%);"/- )/ 2"/"$&3AC
D


TRAI's consultation papei of Febiuaiy 2u1S on cioss meuia owneiship auequately outlines
how the piesent maiket stiuctuie points to incieasing instances of cioss meuia owneiship
acioss piint, Tv bioaucasting, FN bioaucasting, BTB-seivice anu NS0-cable seivice
maikets., leauing to lack of pluiality anu clamping of fieeuom of speech:
", /768"$ .0 #.$<.$&%" -"#%.$ "/%)%)"- &$" "/%"$)/2 %:" 6"9)& -"#%.$A (.$<.$&%"- #&/
7-" 6"9)& %. 8)&- ?)"@- &/9 )/037"/#" <.3)#' 6&*)/2 )/ & 6&//"$ -. &- %. <$.6.%"
%:")$ ?"-%"9 )/%"$"-%- @:)3" 2"/"$&%)/2 87-)/"-- $"?"/7"- 0.$ %:"6-"3?"-A E:)- :&- 3"9

1
1995 SCC (2) 161

%. "6"$2"/#" .0 3&$2" 6"9)& #./23.6"$&%"- @:"$" -)/23" "/%)%)"-F2$.7<- :&?" -%$./2
<$"-"/#" &#$.-- 9)00"$"/% 6"9)& -"26"/%-."
S


%0993*1 83>#8 +9#'3$&9S () *&1 #-3T0#13 1& 93>08#13 H9&))A'3-(# &$*39)6(F

In this backgiounu, it is cleaily seen that some methou foi pieventing cioss meuia
owneiship is uespeiately neeueu in the Inuian scenaiio. Competition law is the only
winuow in the cuiient legal fiamewoik wheieby iegulation of cioss-meuia owneiship may
be attempteu. Bowevei, it is founu that oui competition law is not auequate enough to ueal
with cioss-meuia owneiship.

(C ,*#-3T0#HN &+ 163 H&*H3F1 &+ U9383O#*1 '#9S31V 1& F93O3*1 H9&))A'3-(# &$*39)6(F
Theie have been seveial instances of cases in iecent times conceining anti-competitive
piactices acioss uiffeient meuia which oui competition law has faileu to auuiess
auequately. 0ne such instance aiises in the inauequacy of the concept of "ielevant maiket"
to pievent cioss meuia owneiship. In G,H (.667/)#&%)./- v. !7/ I)$"#% EJ
K
which came up
befoie the Competition Commission of Inuia in 2u11, it was allegeu by NS0s that BTB
seivice pioviueis weie inuulging in pieuatoiy piicing in oiuei to kick the NS0s out of
business. Bowevei, in in this case BTB seivices anu NS0-cable seivices weie not seen pait
of the same "ielevant maiket" as uefineu unuei Competition Act, 2uu2
S
by the CCI, theieby

2
Para 196, Ibid.
3
TRAI, Consultation Paper on Cross Media Ownership,, available at
<http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/CP_on_Cross_media_%2
015-02-2013.pdf>
4
Case No. 08/2009, before, CCI, available at <
http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/JAKMainOrder010911.pdf>
5
(r) "relevant market" means the market which may be determined by the Commission with
reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to
both the markets;
(s) "relevant geographic market" means a market comprising the area in which the conditions
of competition for supply of goods or provision of services or demand of goods or services are
distinctly homogenous and can be distinguished from the conditions prevailing in the
neighbouring areas;

pieventing the CCI fiom imposing pio-competition acioss BTB seivices anu NS0-cable
maiket. This means that the competition law uoes not iecognise thieat of monopolisation
acioss uiffeient kinus of meuia seivices, like acioss BTB anu NS0-cable because the
concept "ielevant maiket" is not auequate enough to iecognise monopolisation acioss
uiffeient meuia. Theiefoie, if foi instance, anti-competitive piactices aie instituteu acioss
Tv bioaucasting anu iauio bioaucasting, wheieby conveigence between the Tv anu iauio
bioaucasting is sought in a paiticulai geogiaphical maiket, the concept of "ielevant
maiket" will not be able to pievent that.

((C "#HS &+ 93H&>*(1(&* &+ 163 H&*H3F1 &+ UH&883H1(O3 -&'(*#*H3V (* &9-39 1& F93O3*1
H9&))A'3-(# &$*39)6(F
The othei aiea wheieby the cuiient competition fiamewoik falls shoit of pieventing cioss-
meuia owneiship is by the lack of iecognition of the concept of "collective uominance." In
I)-: EJ v. L&%:@&' &/9 M%:"$-
N
which was biought befoie the CCI in 2u1S, the BTB seivice
pioviuei allegeu collective abuse of uominant position against NS0s foi collectively
ueteimining exoibitantly high caiiiage fee chaigeu fiom bioaucasteis foi caiiying the
channels on theii cable netwoiks, thus fixing high seivice piices foi BTB competitois. The
CCI helu that collective abuse of uominance, by uiffeient NS0s collectively in uiffeient
geogiaphical maikets wheie they aie uominant, is not iegulateu by competition law in
Inuia, because collective uominance is not iecogniseu as a legal concept in Inuia.
Such lack of action against anti-competitive piactices acioss uiffeient meuia unuei oui law
means that cioss-meuia owneiship can be easily piomoteu by suppiessing competitois in a
uiffeient meuia. Theiefoie the cuiient legal fiamewoik is giossly inauequate foi the
iegulation of cioss-meuia owneiship, anu that is why we neeu a legal fiamewoik which
iestiicts cioss-meuia owneiship acioss the meuia sectoi.



(t) "relevant product market" means a market comprising all those products or services which
are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of characteristics of
the products or services, their prices and intended use;

4CJ;K ,+ )&. $6#1 )6#F3 )6&08- )0H6 93)19(H1(&*) 1#S3L
Restiictions on cioss-meuia owneiship can take seveial foims, anu shoulu be focuseu
geogiaphically. This means that cioss-meuia iestiictions shoulu be implementeu such that
concentiation acioss meuia is iestiicteu in each "ielevant geogiaphical maiket". 0ne can
also look at mouels fiom othei countiies to aiu on this point, which is an exeicise TRAI has
unueitaken in its consultation papei of Febiuaiy 2u1S on cioss meuia owneiship.
7

Accoiuingly the following kinus of iestiictions may be envisageu:
(C D3)19(H1(&*) &* #*1(AH&'F31(1(O3 F9#H1(H3) #H9&)) '3-(# '#9S31)

Competition law neeus to be amenueu in Inuia in a way specific to meuia companies so that
it can also iegulate cioss-meuia owneiship. The loopholes in the concept of "ielevant
maiket" have been highlighteu above- foi meuia companies. "Relevant maiket" specifically
foi meuia entities neeus to be uefineu in such a way that it coveis anti-competitive
piactices in "ielevant geogiaphical maikets" acioss uiffeient meuia piouucts to a much
laigei extent.

Auuitionally, the concept of collective abuse of uominance by a gioup of entities
(iiiespective of whethei they have a legal ielationship as subsiuiaiies oi owneis with each
othei oi not) neeus to be ieau into Section 4(2) of the Competition Act, 2uu2:
8
The meaning

6
Case No. 78/2013, before CCI, available at
<http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/262/782013.pdf>
7
Supra n. 3
8
Abuse of dominant position
4.[(1)No enterprise or group] shall abuse its dominant position.]
(2) There shall be an abuse of dominant position [under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a
group].-
(a) directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatory
(i) condition in purchase or sale of goods or service; or
(ii) price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service.
Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, the unfair or discriminatory condition in purchase
or sale of goods or service referred to in sub-clause (i) and unfair or discriminatory price in
purchase or sale of goods (including predatory price) or service referred to in sub-clause (ii) shall
not include such discriminatory condition or price which may be adopted to meet the
competition; or
(b) limits or restricts

of the woiu "gioup" theiein can be claiifieu thiough an amenument to extenu its scope of
any conglomeiate of entities- with oi without a legal ielationship between them, in the
same ielevant maiket.

((C D3)19(H1(&*) &* *0';39 &+ '3-(# 3*1(1(3) &$*3- (* # F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8
'#9S31
Restiictions can be envisageu on the numbei of meuia entities (acioss uiffeient meuia, like,
Tv, online, piint, anu acioss uiffeient poitions of meuia uistiibution, like, content, caiiiage
anu uistiibution), which can be owneu by a single entity in a paiticulai "ielevant
geogiaphical maiket." This is to pievent consoliuation of meuia owneiship acioss uiffeient
meuia, as well as acioss uiffeient uistiibution platfoims. Such iegulations aie in place foi
case of FN iauio in a paiticulai city, but these can be extenueu covei to all meuia anu &#$.--
uiffeient meuia. So foi example, the same peison oi company shoulu not be alloweu to iun
moie than 2 entities in the same meuia, anu moie than S acioss uiffeient meuia. Theiefoie
the same peison shoulu not be able to own moie than 2 newspapei publisheis, anu moie
than S newspapeis, online platfoims, iauio, telecom, cable netwoiks, BTB pioviueis, Tv
news channels, etc. combineu.
(((C D3)19(H1(&*) &* 3P13*1 &+ )6#936&8-(*> (* '3-(# 3*1(1(3) ;N # )(*>83 F39)&* &9
H&'F#*N &9 &1639) )6#9(*> (*1393)1 $(16 16#1 H&'F#*NIF39)&*
These kinu of iegulations have been executeu in Fiance,
9
wheieby iestiictions on the
extent of shaieholuing in a meuia entity by a single peison oi company aie put in place.
This is uone in oiuei to ensuie that the same peison oi company uoes not exeicise
uominant powei ovei any meuia company in the countiy. Accoiuingly, peisons close to any
peison holuing shaies in a meuia company must not be alloweu to holu shaies in that
company eithei, to pievent uistiibution of shaies of that meuia company, eg. Within the
same family, oi anyone similaily shaiing a close nexus with an existent shaieholuei.

(i) production of goods or provision of services or market therefor; or
(ii) technical or scientific development relating to goods or services to the prejudice of
consumers; or [..]
9
Supra n. 3

(OC D3)19(H1(&*) &* *0';39 &+ '3-(# 3*1(1(3) &$*3- (* # F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8
'#9S31 &* ;#)() &+ -&'(*#*H3 (* '#9S31
The numbei of meuia entities alloweu to be owneu by a peison oi company shoulu be
iestiicteu on basis of its maiket shaies in a paiticulai geogiaphical maiket, baseu on
auequate maiket stuuies. So foi example, if the maiket shaie in a paiticulai geogiaphical
maiket of a meuia entity fiom all its meuia opeiations is > oi equal to X%, then it shoulu
not be alloweu to own auuitional meuia entities.
OC D3)19(H1(&*) &* *0';39 &+ '3-(# 3*1(1(3) &$*3- (* # F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8
'#9S31 &* ;#)() &+ 109*&O39
Auuitional iestiictions can be envisageu on the numbei of meuia entities owneu on the
basis of tuinovei of a peison oi company. This is impoitant in oiuei to cuitail the powei of
the moie uominant playeis in the maiket fiom infiinging the fieeuom of expiession. Baseu
on maiket stuuies, theiefoie, a ceitain amount of tuinovei fiom all meuia opeiations
combineu may be fixeu so that whichevei company oi peison has a tuinovei gieatei than
that is subject to auuitional iegulations conceining the numbei of meuia entities that he
can own in othei meuiums. Theiefoie if a peison oi company has a tuinovei of gieatei
than Rs. X fiom all its meuia opeiations combineu, then it shoulu be pieventeu fiom
iunning moie than Y entities in all meuia combineu.

,1 () 16393+&93 )0;'(113- 16#1 16393 () #* 09>3*1 *33- +&9 H9&)) H&*19&8 #*-
&$*39)6(F #H9&)) '3-(# )3H1&9. #*- 163 )#'3 H#* ;3 #H6(3O3- ;N 163 '3#)093)
-()H0))3- #;&O3C


WCJ#K Q93 '39>39) #*- #HT0()(1(&*) >0(-38(*3) *3H3))#9N +&9 163 )3H1&9 1& 93>08#13
H&*H3*19#1(&* &+ '3-(# &$*39)6(FL
M3). guiuelines on meigeis anu acquisitions aie necessaiy foi the sectoi to iegulate the
concentiation of meuia owneiship. This is impoitant because of the following ieasons.
%&'F31(1(&* 8#$ (* ,*-(# (*#-3T0#13 1& 93>08#13 H&*H3*19#1(&* &+ '3-(# &$*39)6(F
Competition law in Inuia iegulates ceitain kinus of combinations. But this is not auequate
to pievent cioss-meuia meigeis anu acquisitions leauing to concentiation of meuia
owneiship.

This is illustiateu by the case of Walt Bisney anu 0Tv combination which was appioveu by
the CCI,
1u
thus allowing foi concentiation of meuia owneiship. Section 6(1) of the
Competition Act, 2uu2
11
piohibits those combinations which can cause an auveise effect on
competition in the ielevant maiket in Inuia. To ueteimine if Walt Bisney anu 0Tv woulu
constitute the pait of the same ielevant maiket, the CCI ielieu heavily on the fact that Walt
Bisney is piimaiily an English bioaucasting meuium wheieas 0Tv is a Binui bioaucasting
meuium, anu theiefoie uo not constitute pait of the same ielevant maiket.
12
This ieliance
on language to constitute Walt Bisney anu 0Tv as pait of sepaiate ielevant maikets,
insteau of looking at the bioaucasting inuustiy as a whole, can piomote concentiation of
meuia owneiship acioss bioaucasting even in uiffeient languages.




10
Livemint, CCI approves Walt Disney and Network18 Group Firms Deal, available at
<http://www.livemint.com/Politics/VjhgmtfDIGnQX60IJjhICO/CCI-approves-Walt-Disney-
Network18-group-firms-deal.html>
11
Regulation of Combinations 6.(1) No person or enterprise shall enter into a combination
which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within the
relevant market in India and such a combination shall be void.
12
May 2011 Case before CCI, available at
<http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/CombinationsOrders/WaltCombOrder25
0811.pdf>

%0993*1 83>#8 93>08#1(&*) #93 (*#-3T0#13 1& F93O3*1 H9&))A'3-(# &$*39)6(F 169&0>6
'39>39) #*- #HT0()(1(&*)
Anothei woiiying tienu is the combination of big meuia houses with big inuustiy houses in
the countiy, as was seen iecently in the case of Reliance acquiiing a contiolling stake
Netwoik 18,
1S
which owns a numbei of news, enteitainment anu e-commeice channels.
This is anothei example of cioss-meuia owneiship, wheie the ownei of telecom seivices
acquiies a stake in a meuia content anu caiiiage pioviuei on Tv anu online platfoims; that
the law is inauequate to iegulate.
J;K,+ )&. $6#1 #93 163 S3N +#H1&9) )0H6 93>08#1(&*) '0)1 H#F1093L
Such iegulations must captuie the facts of '#9S31 )6#93. 109*&O39 +9&' #88 '3-(#
&F39#1(&*). #*- *0';39 &+ '3-(# 3*1(1(3) #893#-N &$*3- by the peison oi company
which is sought to be iegulateu. These aie elaboiateu as following:

(C D3)19(H1(&*) &* H391#(* H&';(*#1(&*) &* ;#)() &+ -&'(*#*H3 (* #
F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8 '#9S31
Combinations of meuia entities via meigeis anu amalgamations shoulu be iestiicteu on
basis of theii maiket shaies in a paiticulai geogiaphical maiket, baseu on auequate maiket
stuuies. So foi example, if the maiket shaie in a paiticulai geogiaphical maiket of a meuia
entity fiom all its meuia opeiations is > oi equal to X%, then it shoulu not be alloweu to
combine with othei meuia entities. Auuitionally, if the pioposeu combination will leau to a
maiket shaie > oi equal to X% combineu foi the new meuia entity, then also such
combinations shoulu not be alloweu.
((C D3)19(H1(&*) &* H391#(* H&';(*#1(&*) &* ;#)() &+ *0';39 &+ 3*1(1(3)
&$*3- (* # F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8 '#9S31
Combinations of meuia entities shoulu auuitionally also be iestiicteu on the basis of how
many meuia entities the peison oi company looking to combine alieauy owns in a
paiticulai geogiaphical maiket. So if an entity looking to combine alieauy owns S playeis,
foi example, acioss all soits of meuia, then they shoulu not be alloweu to combine. If two

13
Hindu Business Line, Reliance Acquires Controlling Stake in Network18
<http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/reliance-acquires-controlling-stake-in-
network18/article6062268.ece>

entities owning <S playeis acioss all meuia in a paiticulai ielevant geogiaphical maiket aie
looking to combine, but upon combination they will togethei own >S meuia entities acioss
all meuia, then such combination shoulu also be pieventeu.

(((C D3)19(H1(&*) &* H391#(* H&';(*#1(&*) &* ;#)() &+ 109*&O39 (* #
F#91(H08#9 >3&>9#F6(H#8 '#9S31
Legal iegulations shoulu be put in place to iestiict ceitain combinations on basis of the
tuinoveis fiom all the meuia opeiations of the entities seeking combination, so that in
scenaiio of a ceitain level of tuinoveis foi each company seeking combination, anu foi both
companies combineu, theii combination is not alloweu. Theiefoie, foi example, let's say the
tuinovei limit foi each company is fixeu at }, anu foi both companies combineu is fixeu at K.
So if Company X anu Company Y, both meuia companies aie seeking to combine, anu if the
tuinovei of X is L anu that of Y is N, wheie L anu N aie each > }, then X anu Y shoulu not be
alloweu to combine. Similaily, if Company P anu Company Q aie looking to combine, anu
theii tuinovei each is C anu B iespectively, wheie both C anu B < } but C+B>K, then also C
anu B shoulu be pieventeu fiom combining.

,1 () 16393+&93 )0;'(113- 16#1 >0(-38(*3) +&9 #'#8>#'#1(&*) #*- '39>39) #93
(''(*3*1 1& F93O3*1 '3-(# H&*H3*19#1(&* #*- F9&13H1(&* +0*-#'3*1#8 9(>61 1& +933
)F33H6 #*- 3PF93))(&* &+ H(1(X3*) &+ ,*-(#. #*- 163 )#'3 H#* ;3 #H6(3O3- ;N 163
'3#)093) -()H0))3- #;&O3C

YC @& '#*-#1&9N -()H8&)093 *&9') *33- 1& ;3 ('F&)3- &* '3-(# 3*1(1(3)L
M3). manuatoiy uisclosuie noims shoulu be imposeu on meuia entities because theii
business activities uiiectly affect the impoitant funuamental iight of fieeuom of speech anu
expiession offeieu unuei Aiticle 19(1)(a).

@#1# &* '3-(# H&'F#*(3) 1&& 0*938(#;83. 8('(13- #*- -()F#9#13 +&9 3++3H1(O3
('F83'3*1#1(&* &+ 93>08#1(&*) #>#(*)1 '3-(# H&*H3*19#1(&*. 3C>C 169&0>6
H&'F31(1(&* 8#$

Bata on companies in the meuia sectoi is extiemely limiteu, insufficient, unieliable anu
inaccessible. Commonly quoteuciteu uata, often even in goveinment uocuments, is
souiceu fiom inuustiy consoitia anu consulting companies, which <$)6& 0&#)" calls into
question theii ieliability, neutiality anu compiehensiveness of the uata, eg. If it is only
baseu on naiiow, commeicial inuicatois. This means that even uata to ueteimine "ielevant
maiket" anu anti-competitive piactices unuei competition law is inauequate anu
unieliable. In this light, uisclosuie noims foi all meuia companies shoulu be manuatoiy,
especially since they aie seiving the public inteiest of piotection of funuamental iight
thiough exeicise of fiee speech.
14

Nost meuia companies aie piivate companies. Since uisclosuie noims foi piivate anu
public companies aie uiffeient, it is impoitant that they be haimoniseu especially in
ielation to entities inuulging in vaiious stages of meuia piouuction.

D#1(&*#8 *3P0) F93)3*1 0*-39 Q91(H83 45 +&9 '#*-#1&9N -()H8&)093 *&9') 0F&*
F9(O#13 '3-(# H&'F#*(3)

Piivate companies may iaise conceins about such manuatoiy uisclosuie noims on basis of
violation of Aiticle 14 of the Constitution by calling such manuatoiy uisclosuie noims
aibitiaiy anu baseu upon unieasonable classification. Bowevei, in case of piivate 6"9)&
companies at vaiious stages of meuia piouuction, like content, caiiiage, uistiibution, theie
is auequate iational nexus between theii classification as meuia companies anu the
obligation foi manuatoiy uisclosuie. Such manuatoiy uisclosuies can be justifieu foi
piivate meuia companies because unlike othei companies, they seive the impoitant task of
pioviuing infoimation unuei Aiticle 19(1)(a) anu Aiticle 21 foi all citizens in the countiy.
Beighteneu uisclosuie noims aie theiefoie necessaiy to monitoi the quality anu pluiality
of infoimation thus uisseminateu to the citizens as pait of theii funuamental iights, thus
establishing the iational nexus iequiiement foi equality unuei Aiticle 14 of the
Constitution.


14
Open Society Foundations, Mapping Digital Media: India (2013), available at

?#1093 &+ -()H8&)093 *&9') 1& ;3 ('F&)3- 0F&* #88 '3-(# H&'F#*(3). F9(O#13. &9
F0;8(H. #*- #1 -(++393*1 )1#>3) &+ '3-(# F9&-0H1(&*
Bisclosuies foi all piivate, unlisteu as well public meuia entities, theiefoie shoulu be
manuateu conceining the following aspects:
i. i. Coipoiate stiuctuies, incluuing which entities they holu anu aie
subsiuiaiies of, etc.
ii. ii. Piomoteis,
iii. iii. Shaieholueis,
iv. iv. Shaieholuings in othei companies,
v. v. Bebt anu equity (uomestic anu foieign), so as to thiow gieatei light
on the holuing patteins of meuia companies.
vi. vi. Annual iepoits anu financial statements, especially of piivate news
meuia companies shoulu be maue available in public uomain foi fiee
vii. vii. Financial uata shoulu be maue available in gianulai foim foi both
piivate anu public meuia entities, by bieaking up total ievenue into vaiious
heaus of eainings, eg. Auveitisement, subsciiption anu synuication ievenue, oi
uetails of types of foieign shaieholuings.
viii. viii. Ninutes of Boaiu meetings foi all meuia companies incluuing
unlisteu piivate meuia companies shoulu be maue available in public uomain foi
fiee.
ix. ix. The collection anu piesentation foimat of all such uata, incluuing
stock maiket filings by listeu companies, annual iepoits anu Foims 2uB fileu
with Registiais of Companies anu infoimation memoianua maue public piioi to
a public listing on a stock exchange by all meuia companies, shoulu be maue on
unifoim paiameteis anu unifoim levels of aggiegation; though this is manuateu
in the Companies Act, such compliance is not always ensuieu, thus making
publically accessible uata uneven anu unusable foi systematic measuiement oi
compaiisons.


http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/mapping-digital-media-india>

@#1# +9&' )0H6 -()H8&)093) ;N '3-(# H&'F#*(3) )6&08- ;3 H&88#13- ;N # H3*19#8
#>3*HN 1& 3*)093 H&*)()13*HN &* F#9#'3139) #*- #>>93>#1(&* &+ )0H6 -#1#
The task of collation of such uata can be cooiuinateu by a single cential agency, like TRAI oi
Planning Commission, in paitneiship with the civil society, which can highlight public
conceins anu loopholes in uata on meuia companies. This is neeueu so that the uata on
vieweiship anu maiket uominance is not just baseu on stuuies by the inuustiy, anu aie
maue piesentable in a national uata consoitium foi meuia companies on unifoim
paiameteis anu aggiegations, anu easily accessible by the public, as it is the public's iight
to fieeuom of speech anu expiession which is at stake heie.

Z3H#0)3 &+ #88 163 #;&O3 H&*)(-39#1(&*). (1 () )0;'(113- 16#1 '#*-#1&9N -()H8&)093
*&9') -& *33- 1& ;3 ('F&)3- &* #88 '3-(# 3*1(1(3). $631639 F9(O#13 &9 F0;8(H. 8()13-
&9 0*8()13-. #1 #88 83O38) &+ '3-(# F9&-0H1(&*. (*H80-(*> H#99(#>3. H&*13*1 #*-
-()19(;01(&*C

5C [6&08- H391#(* H#13>&9(3) &+ 3*1(1(3) ;3 93)19(H13- +9&' 3*139(*> (*1& ;9&#-H#)1(*>
#H1(O(1(3)L
M3), theie shoulu be iestiictions on entities enteiing into bioaucasting activities.
The Supieme Couit in !"#$"%&$' v. ($)#*"% ,--.#)&%)./ .0 1"/2&3
4O
has saiu that lack of
iestiictions on who can entei into bioaucasting can leau to monopolisation of bioaucasting
activities by only a few meuia entities thiough the cieation of oligaichies. This means that
gianting bioaucasting license without iestiictions woulu become a seiious bieach of the
iight of fieeuom anu expiession guaianteeu unuei Aiticle 19(1)(a).

"3))&*) +9&' ,1#8NE "#HS &+ 93)19(H1(&*) &* $6& H#* 3*139 (*1& ;9&#-H#)1(*> 83- 1& #*
&8(>#9H6N #*- ;93#H6 &+ +933-&' &+ )F33H6 #*- 3PF93))(&*
The couit in !"#$"%&$' v. ($)#*"% ,--.#)&%)./ .0 1"/2&3
4N
waineu against a fiee maiket
baseu- lack of iestiictions appioach to bioaucasting by citing the situation in Italy wheie

15
Supra n. 1
16
Ibid.

such an appioach has leu to massive meuia concentiation into hanus of an oligaichy. The
couit saiu:
"E:" 0&#% $"6&)/- %:&% &)$@&?"- &$" <783)# <$.<"$%' %:&% %:"' &$" %. 8" 7%)3)-"9 %. %:" 2$"&%"-%
<783)# 2..9P %:&% %:"' #&//.% 8" &33.@"9 %. 8" 6./.<.3)-"9 .$ :)>&#*"9 8' & 0"@ <$)?)3"2"9
<"$-./- .$ 2$.7<-P %:&% 2$&/%)/2 3)#"/-" %. "?"$'./" @:. &-*- 0.$ )% @.739 $"97#" %:" $)2:% %.
/.%:)/2 &/9 %:&% -7#: & 3)#"/-)/2 -'-%"6 @.739 "/9 7< )/ #$"&%)./ .0 .3)2.<.3)"- &- %:"
"B<"$)"/#" )/ Q%&3' :&- -:.@/ R @:"$" %:" 3)6)%"9 "B<"$)6"/% .0 <"$6)%%)/2 <$)?&%"
8$.&9#&-%)/2 &% %:" 3.#&3 3"?"3 %:.72: /.% &% %:" /&%)./&3 3"?"3= :&- $"-73%"9 )/ #$"&%)./ .0
2)&/% 6"9)& "6<)$"- &/9 6"9)& 6&2/&%"-= & 9"?"3.<6"/% /.% #./97#)?" %. 0$"" -<""#: $)2:%
.0 %:" #)%);"/-AC
4S

The couit points out that the Italian Constitution has similai piovisions as Aiticle 19(1)(a)
of Inuia, yet the lack of iestiictions in bioaucasting has leu to piivate monopolisation of
meuia leauing to lack of pluiality in fiee speech.
"3))&*) +9&' \[QE "#HS &+ 93)19(H1(&*) &* $6& H#* 3*139 (*1& ;9&#-H#)1(*> 83- 1&
+&9'#1(&* &+ '3-(# 3'F(93) 169&0>6 H9&))A'3-(# &$*39)6(F #*- ;93#H6 &+ +933-&'
&+ )F33H6 #*- 3PF93))(&*

The couit in !"#$"%&$' v. ($)#*"% ,--.#)&%)./ .0 1"/2&3
4T
auuitionally lookeu at cioss-meuia
owneiship in 0niteu States of Ameiica, which iesulteu uue to fiee maiket appioach to
bioaucasting, anu auviseu that lack of iestiictions upon who can be a playei in
bioaucasting will be to the uetiiment of fiee speech anu pluiality of expiession in Inuia, as
has been the case in the 0S. The couit exceipteu poitions fiom the 0S case of U)&6) L"$&39
V783)-:)/2 (.6<&/' v. E.$/)33.
4W
to highlight this point. The Inuian SC saiu:
UQ% @.739 8" )/-%$7#%)?" %. /.%" %:" 3&6"/% .0 %:" X/)%"9 !%&%"- !7<$"6" (.7$% $"2&$9)/2 %:"
9"3"%"$).7- "00"#% %:" "6"$2"/#" .0 6"9)& "6<)$"- :&9 ./ %:" 0$""9.6 .0 V$"-- )/ %:&%
#.7/%$'A Q/ U)&6) L"$&39 V783)-:)/2 (.6<&/' ?A E.$/)33. Y4WSK R K4T XA!A DK 4Z= %:" (.7$%
-&)9[

17
Para 190
18
Supra n. 1
19
1974 - 418 U.S. 241

\,##"-- &9?.#&%"- -786)% %:&% AAAA %:" <$"-- .0 %.9&' )- )/ $"&3)%' ?"$' 9)00"$"/% 0$.6 %:&% */.@/
)/ %:" "&$3' '"&$- .0 .7$ /&%)./&3 "B)-%"/#"AAAAAE:" "3)6)/&%)./ .0 #.6<"%)/2 /"@-<&<"$- )/
6.-% .0 .7$ 3&$2" #)%)"-= &/9 %:" #./#"/%$&%)./ .0 #./%$.3 .0 6"9)& %:&% $"-73%- 0$.6 %:" ./3'
/"@-<&<"$]- 8")/2 .@/"9 8' %:" -&6" )/%"$"-%- @:)#: .@/ & %"3"?)-)./ -%&%)./ &/9 & $&9).
-%&%)./= &$" )6<.$%&/% #.6<./"/%- .0 %:)- %$"/9 %.@&$9- #./#"/%$&%)./ .0 #./%$.3 .0 .7%3"%- %.
)/0.$6 %:" <783)#A
E:" $"-73% .0 %:"-" ?&-% #:&/2"- :&- 8""/ %. <3&#" )/ & 0"@ :&/9- %:" <.@"$ %. )/0.$6 %:"
,6"$)#&/ <".<3" &/9 -:&<" <783)# .<)/)./A U7#: .0 %:" "9)%.$)&3 .<)/)./ &/9 #.66"/%&$'
%:&% )- <$)/%"9 )- %:&% .0 -'/9)#&%"9 #.376/)-%- 9)-%$)87%"9 /&%)./@)9" &/9= &- & $"-73%= @" &$"
%.39= ./ /&%)./&3 &/9 @.$39 )--7"- %:"$" %"/9- %. 8" & :.6.2"/")%' .0 "9)%.$)&3 .<)/)./=
#.66"/%&$'= &/9 )/%"$<$"%)?" &/&3'-)-A E:" &87-"- .0 8)&- &/9 6&/)<73&%)?" $"<.$%&2" &$"=
3)*"@)-"= -&)9 %. 8" %:" $"-73% .0 %:" ?&-% &##7673&%)./- .0 7/$"?)"@&83" <.@"$ )/ %:" 6.9"6
6"9)& "6<)$"-A Q/ "00"#%= )% )- #3&)6"9= %:" <783)# :&- 3.-% &/' &8)3)%' %. $"-<./9 .$ %.
#./%$)87%" )/ & 6"&/)/2073 @&' %. %:" 9"8&%" ./ )--7"-AAAA

E:" .8?).7- -.37%)./= @:)#: @&- &?&)3&83" %. 9)--)9"/%- &% &/ "&$3)"$ %)6" @:"/ "/%$' )/%.
<783)-:)/2 @&- $"3&%)?"3' )/"B<"/-)?"= %.9&' @.739 8" %. :&?" &99)%)./&3 /"@-<&<"$-A 17% %:"
-&6" "#./.6)# 0&#%.$- @:)#: :&?" #&7-"9 %:" 9)-&<<"&$&/#" .0 ?&-% /768"$- .0 6"%$.<.3)%&/
/"@-<&<"$-= :&?" 6&9" "/%$' )/%. %:" 6&$*"% <3&#" .0 )9"&- -"$?"9 8' %:" <$)/% 6"9)& &36.-%
)6<.--)83"A Q% )- 7$2"9 %:&% %:" #3&)6 .0 /"@-<&<"$- %. 8" ^-7$$.2&%"- 0.$ %:" <783)#^ #&$$)"-
@)%: )% & #./#.6)%&/% 0)97#)&$' .83)2&%)./ %. &##.7/% 0.$ %:&% -%"@&$9-:)<A _$.6 %:)- <$"6)-"
)% )- $"&-./"9 %:&% %:" ./3' "00"#%)?" @&' %. )/-7$" 0&)$/"-- &/9 &##7$&#' &/9 %. <$.?)9" 0.$
-.6" &##.7/%&8)3)%' )- 0.$ 2.?"$/6"/% %. %&*" &00)$6&%)?" &#%)./A E:" _)$-% ,6"/96"/%
)/%"$"-% .0 %:" <783)# )/ 8")/2 )/0.$6"9 )- -&)9 %. 8" )/ <"$)3 8"#&7-" %:" ^6&$*"%<3&#" .0
)9"&-^ )- %.9&' & 6./.<.3' #./%$.33"9 8' %:" .@/"$- .0 %:" 6&$*"%AAA"V

7&9'#1(&* &+ =3-(# ]'F(93) (* Z9&#-H#)1(*> 93)081) (* H&*19&8 &+ >&O39*'3*1 ;N
'3-(# H&'F#*(3)
The Inuian Supieme Couit then pointeu out in the ($)#*"% ,--.#)&%)./ 1.&$9 case that lack
of iestiictions on entiy into bioaucasting can in fact, leau to contiol of goveinment by
meuia empiies thus foimeu. This is because of the huge amount of powei they wielu, the

goveinment cannot always contiol meuia giants in such situations fiom ueiogating the
iight to fiee speech. The couit took up the example of 0niteu States again to illustiate this:
"M0 #.7$-"= %:"$" )- &/.%:"$ -)9" %. %:)- <)#%7$"[ %:" 6"9)& 2)&/%- )/ X/)%"9 !%&%"- &$" -.
<.@"$073 %:&% `.?"$/6"/% #&//.% &3@&'- 6&/)<73&%" %:"6 R &- @&- <$.?"9 )/ %:" V"/%&2./
V&<"$-] #&-" ab"@ c.$* E)6"- ?AX/)%"9 !%&%"- R Y4WS4Z Kde XA!AS4eZf &/9 )/ %:" #&-" .0
V$"-)9"/%]- (3&)6 .0 V$)?)3"2" aX/)%"9 !%&%"- ?A b)B./ R Y4WSKZ K4T XA!ANTeZfA E:"-"
#./-)9"$&%)./- R &33 .0 %:"6 "6<:&-)-"9 8' (./-%)%7%)./&3 (.7$%- .0 X/)%"9 !%&%"- &/9 6&>.$
@"-%Rg7$.<"&/ #.7/%$)"- R 07$/)-: ?&3)9 2$.7/9- &2&)/-% $"&9)/2 )/%. ,$%)#3" 4WY4ZY&Z & $)2:%
%. "-%&83)-: <$)?&%" 8$.&9#&-%)/2 -%&%)./-= @:"%:"$ <"$6&/"/% .$ %"6<.$&$'= -%&%)./&$' .$
6.8)3"."
2u

Z3H#0)3 &+ #88 163 #;&O3 H&*)(-39#1(&*). (1 () )0;'(113- 16#1 3*19N (*1& ;9&#-H#)1(*>
)6&08- *&1 ;3 +933A+&9A#88 #*- )6&08- ;3 93)19(H13-. (* &9-39 163 +&)139 #*- F9&13H1 163
O#803) &+ &09 H&*)1(101(&* (* 163 1903. F9#H1(H#8 )3*)3 +&9 3O39N H(1(X3* (* 163 H&0*19NC


20
Para 190

,,C =3-(# #*- ,*-(O(-0#8 G9(O#HN
W4


The iight to piivacy vis-a-vis the State is ieau into the iight to life anu peisonal libeity in
Aiticle 21 anu fieeuom of piess is piotecteu unuei fieeuom of expiession unuei
Aiticle 19(1)(a). Beie we look at the possible conflicts between the two. In Khaiak Singh v.
State of 0P,
22
piivacy was ieau into "peisonal libeity" in Aiticle 21. Initially the iight of
piivacy was conceineu only with uomiciliaiy visits to the house especially with iegaiu to
police entiy, but this has been expanueu to incluue inuiviuual piivacy especially of family
anu ielations (R.Rajagopal anu Anothei v. State of Tamil Nauu anu 0theis),
2S
anu although
the iight to piivacy is not an absolute iight, it uoes incluue in its puiview some aspects of
bouily piivacy anu inuiviuual uata piivacy (Ni. X vs. Bospital).
24
}uuicial uelibeiation on
the iight to piivacy in Inuia has not been auequate especially in light of auvancements of
technology, computing anu the possible use of mass suiveillance. Cuiiently theie is a Right
to Piivacy bill penuing in Pailiament.

In the context of existing juiispiuuence on piivacy, the conflict that aiises between piivacy
anu meuia laws oi fieeuom of piess, is especially ielevant foi sting opeiations. The teiiible
inciuents involving 0ma Khuiana, a teachei unfaiily peisecuteu by a sting opeiation, anu
Bi. Siinivas Siias, a piofessoi whose piivate life was maue fouuei foi meuia channels,
especially highlight the neeu to take the iight to piivacy of inuiviuuals fai moie seiiously.

Sting opeiation is a jouinalistic tool that is often useu especially to expose coiiuption by
public seivants. It usually woulu involve ueception oi entiapment by the jouinalist anu
iaises many issues in ielation to jouinalistic ethics, law anu especially piivacy of the
inuiviuual. Sting opeiations aie also useu to expose piivate anu sexual lives of people in
positions of powei anu authoiity, whethei goveinment officials, teacheis in a univeisity oi
otheis such as goumen, celebiities etc. The question that is iaiseu is when the activity in

21
Inputs from Elonnai Hickock
22
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
23
1994 SCC (6) 632
24
(1998) 8 SCC 296

question is in no way illegal anu is legitimately within the piivate spheie. At the same time
sting opeiations aie often uone with a genuine motivation to expose coiiuption anu
wionguoings of those in powei. In this instance a sting opeiation is like being a
whistleblowei exposing coiiuption, anu thus these iights of fieeuom of expiession anu
fieeuom of piess have to be piotecteu as well.

Sting opeiations aie mostly meuia affaiis because theie aie conflicting opinions on
whethei the viueo oi othei mateiial can be useu as eviuence in couit, even if the sting
opeiation captuies a blatantly illegal act uone by a public seivant. In the case of Aniiuuuha
Bahal v. State
2S
the Belhi Bigh Couit helu that jouinalists cannot be piosecuteu foi biibing
the public officials unuei the Pievention of Coiiuption Act, 1988 anu this to some extent
piotects jouinalists who aie conuucting sting opeiations. In many instances meuia
coveiage allows othei people to come foiwaiu with infoimation that they might have. It
ensuies that theie is public uisappioval of the ciime anu public uiscussion anu this is
impoitant especially if it is about coiiuption anu malpiactice of those who aie in authoiity,
whethei it is the way in which goveinment hospitals function oi biibes aie uemanueu in a
coiiupt iegime of buieauciacy. Bowevei this piotection is not waiianteu when it is not
coiiuption that is being exposeu, but the piivate lives of inuiviuuals, some who aie public
seivants anu many who aie not. Theie have been seveial instances of channels
bioaucasting footage of sting opeiations that follow young women in a bai, people engageu
in sexual activity, women being molesteu, violence against tiansgenuei people anu sex
woikeis,
26
entiapment of sex woikeis, footage of piivate paities anu gatheiings anu many
othei such instances.

Existing fiamewoik gives piotection to inuiviuual iight to piivacy unuei legal iemeuies anu
guiuelines of news associations anu othei similai self-iegulatoiy guiuelines


25
2010 172 DLT 269.
26
Since sex work itself is not an offence under the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1986,
such a sting operation is not an instance of capturing an illegal act. Only soliciting is an offence
under the Act.

- Cable Television Netwoik Act anu the Content guiuelines unuei it put a seiies
of obligations on the bioaucasteis anu bioaucasting seivice pioviueis to ensuie that
theie is no invasion of piivacy unless theie is an iuentifiable laigei public inteiest.
- Inuiviuuals post the bioaucast have the legal iemeuy - iight to sue foi
uefamation, slanuei. Also allege the violation of theii iight to piivacy
- uuiuelines in the self iegulatoiy coue of the News Bioaucasteis Association
anu Electionic Neuia Nonitoiing Centei of the Infoimation & Bioaucasting ministiy
- News Bioaucasting Stanuaius Authoiity has a complaint anu fines
mechanism that is applicable only to membeis (bioaucasteis) only
- Ciiminal offence of voyeuiism unuei the new amenument to sexual assault
law
In this context, the following questions aiise foi consiueiation by the Law Commission
1. Shoulu a statutoiy bouy have poweis to aujuuicate complaints of false sting
opeiations. Shoulu theie be a specific statutoiy piovision foi tieating false sting
opeiations as a punishable offence.
2. Shoulu the existing fiamewoik of laws be suitably amenueu to incluue
specific guiuelines goveining uisclosuie of piivate infoimation by the piess.
S. Is theie a neeu foi uetaileu guiuelines on iepoiting of -78 >79)#" matteis.
4. Is the cuiient uefinition of "Iuentifiable laigei public inteiest" unuei the
Cable Tv Netwoiks (Regulation) Act, 199S compiehensive.
These aie uealt with below
"#$E

With iegaiu to the authoiity of a statutoiy bouy, the consiueiation is whethei a statutoiy
bouy, oi the News Bioaucasting Stanuaius Authoiity oi a similai bouy, shoulu be gianteu
the authoiity to aujuuicate complaints of false sting opeiations. Such a bouy then woulu be
aujuuicating on the fieeuom of expiession, fieeuom of piess anu iight to piivacy of
inuiviuuals. The NBSA consists of seniois in the fielu of jouinalism anu ietiieu juuges anu
has foimulateu self-iegulatoiy guiuelines, namely the Coue of Ethics anu Bioaucasting
Stanuaius. It cuiiently has the authoiity to, on the basis of a complaint oi otheiwise,
conuuct an inquiiy anu give a heaiing to the bioaucastei. It can then censuie, impose a fine

of maximum 1 lakh on the bioaucastei, oi iecommenu suspension anu ievocation of
license of the bioaucastei. This mechanism is ielatively new but has not pioveu veiy
effective in eithei auuiessing piivacy issues oi cleaily establishing what is public inteiest.
In one instance when the NBSA imposeu a fine, the saiu bioaucastei withuiew fiom its
membeiship.

It is oui opinion that it shoulu be the inuepenuent juuiciaiy that is the ultimate aibitei on
the extent of the funuamental iights anu not a statutoiy bouy (even of peeis fiom the fielu
of jouinalism anu news). Becisions of the NBSA shoulu be subject to the same
iequiiements unuei the constitution, anu the couits shoulu ueal with an appeal against the
uecisions of the NBSA to ensuie that the penultimate authoiity on questions of fieeuom of
expiession, fieeuom of piess anu the iight to piivacy is the inuepenuent juuiciaiy.

Sting opeiations aie cuiiently unueistoou in teims of available technology at the moment
like hiuuen cameias anu small cameias anu listening uevices. As the 0N Resolution on the
Right to Piivacy in a Bigital Age (2u
th
Novembei, 2u1S) makes cleai, theie aie moues of
mass suiveillance anu uata collection that can be useu both by the State anu coipoiate
entities. Such mateiial, incluuing text, viueo, auuio coulu also be useu in a similai mannei
as what is obtaineu fiom a sting opeiation. With the iapiu changes in technology anu how it
is useu, it woulu not be beneficial to naiiowly confine the conflict between meuia laws anu
piivacy only to a sting opeiation, but to be inclusive of leaks oi othei ways in which what is
piivate can be uiscloseu. A sting opeiation woulu only incluue instances when a peison is
willfully entiappeu oi ueceiveu into engaging in a tiansaction that is then caught on cameia
oi othei uevices without theii consent. Theie aie howevei othei ways in which theie can
be a violation of an inuiviuual's piivacy - incluuing uisclosuie of piivate emails anu othei
uata, footage of the peison, biometiic infoimation, meuical infoimation etc. With the
auvancement of technology theie aie incieasing numbei of ways in which an inuiviuual's
piivacy can be put at iisk anu violateu by an exeicise of fieeuom of piess. The iight to
piivacy has to be cleaily expanueu to incluue violation of piivacy in teims of bieach of

peisonal uata oi invasion of piivacy, anu this too has to be incluueu in consiueiation of the
conflict between fieeuom of piess anu piivacy laws.

Foi instance the most iecent legal step inteinationally in ielation to piivacy laws is by a
couit in ueimany whose iuling alloweu foi a woman to uemanu that the ueletion of theii
piivate anu sexual images by hei ex-paitnei oi lovei, even though he hau not inuicateu that
he intenueu to ciiculate those images.
27
Asiue fiom conveying the vaiious foims in which
peisonal uata is being collecteu anu can be useu to the uetiiment of a peison, this also
shows that theie aie uiffeiing stanuaius inteinationally anu in othei countiies such as in
Euiope oi Ameiica with iegaiu to fiee speech anu inuiviuual piivacy. In the 0niteu States
of Ameiica, only law enfoicement authoiities (anu not jouinalists) aie alloweu to use
hiuuen cameias anu only unuei ceitain conuitions anu expiess authoiity. In the Inuian
context, the iight to piivacy is not the beneficiaiy of a iich juiispiuuence, but nonetheless
theie has been some expansion of the notion of piivacy.

[38+A93>08#1&9N >0(-38(*3) +&9 163 '3-(#E

The News Bioaucasteis Stanuaiu Authoiity has uuiuelines Foi Conuucting Sting
0peiations as pait of NBA's Coue of Ethics anu Bioaucasting Stanuaius anu Specific
uuiuelines Coveiing Repoitage.

These guiuelines allow foi a 'sting opeiation' oi the usage of mateiial ielating to a peison's
piivate affaiis only if theie is an iuentifiable public inteiest oi foi exposing wiong-uoing.
The lattei is a veiy bioau categoiy anu peihaps this shoulu be naiioweu uown to illegal
activity, which cleaily is alieauy incluueu within 'laigei public inteiest'. It shoulu not be
possible to inteipiet the guiuelines fiom vaiying moial positions that then allows foi the
violation of piivacy of the piivate life of a peison (family life, sexual activities, piivate life,
peisonal uata). The guiuelines also state that a sting opeiation can be telecast only if it
pioviues piima facie eviuence of culpability of those captuieu in this opeiation.


The othei iequiiements in place incluue ethics of news anu jouinalism, legal piovisions,
authoiization fiom heau of euitoiial team anu othei pioceuuial iequiiements on the
conuucting of a sting opeiation. This incluues a textual iecoiu alongsiue the visual oi viueo
iecoius of the opeiation that uetails eveiy stage of the sting opeiation, that the sting
opeiation can be useu only when theie aie no othei means of ietiieving the same
infoimation, that theie shoulu be no giatuitous piying into people's peisonal lives. Theie
coulu peihaps be some expansion of these guiuelines that theie shoulu be some piioi
eviuence of wiong-uoing anu that the sting opeiation is only to pioviue conclusive
eviuence. Bowevei all these iequiiements aie only guiuelines anu aie applicable to
membeis, anu thus any news agency oi television channel can withuiaw fiom membeiship
anu being even maiginally accountable to eithei the NBA oi NBSA oi theii complaints anu
fine mechanism.

With iegaiu to a statutoiy piovision in ielation to iight to piivacy anu sting opeiations oi
bieach of inuiviuual piivacy by piess oi meuia, oui iecommenuation woulu be:
- The penultimate authoiity shoulu be the inuepenuent juuiciaiy since theie
aie sensitive issues at stake especially in ielation to funuamental iights of fieeuom
of expiession anu iight to piivacy.
- Such a piovision shoulu not be confineu only to the naiiow peiception of
how sting opeiations aie conuucteu cuiiently but expanueu to incluue bieach of
inuiviuual piivacy anu peisonal uata by othei means anu technologies.
- Such a piovision shoulu not be optional, as the guiuelines cuiiently aie, anu
pioviue a iemeuy to inuiviuuals to puisue claims (also to uemanu the iemoval of
saiu mateiial fiom bioaucastei's website oi viueo channel online).

%9('(*#8 &++3*H3 &+ O&N309()'
The new amenument to law foi sexual assault pioviues foi a section on voyeuiism that
cleaily ciiminalizes the uistiibution of all images of a woman engageu in a piivate oi sexual

27
William Costolo, Former Lover Must Delete Nude Photos and Videos in Germany, The

activity without hei consent. It caiiies a punishment of one to thiee yeais anuoi fine foi a
fiist conviction anu this incieases to maximum of seven yeais on subsequent convictions.
This ciiminal offence pioviues one ueteiient to sting opeiations that violate women's
piivacy. The existence of such a piovision that uoes ciiminalize voyeuiism shows that sting
opeiations of such a natuie shoulu eithei be piosecuteu unuei this offence, oi guiuelines of
the NBA anu the I&B ministiy shoulu incluue that sting opeiations cannot slip into the
teiiain of voyeuiism into people's piivate lives. Awaieness that this piovision can be useu
woulu also be useful. Though the legislative intent of this piovision is to ueal with
poinogiaphy, it can be useu in instances when meuia channels aie using sting opeiations
as a blatant invasion of inuiviuual piivacy anu sensationalize news by pioviuing titillating
glimpses of sexual activity anuoi nuuity.

D3F&91(*> &* [0;^0-(H3 '#1139)

In this instance as well, the balance of iights has to be achieveu between the fieeuom of
piess anu meuia unuei Aiticle 19(1)(a) anu the iight to piivacy ieau into Aiticle 21 oi the
iight to life anu peisonal libeity. In State of Nahaiashtia v. Rajenuia }awanmal uanuhi,
28

the Supieme Couit obseiveu: "Theie is the pioceuuie establisheu by law goveining the
conuuct of tiial of a peison accuseu of an offence. A tiial by piess, electionic meuia oi
public agitation is veiy antithesis of iule of law. It can well leau to miscaiiiage of justice. A
juuge has to guaiu himself against any such piessuie anu is to be guiueu stiictly by iules of
law. If he finus the peison guilty of an offence he is then to auuiess himself to the question
of sentence to be awaiueu to him in accoiuance with the piovisions of law"

To piotect the iights of the accuseu until pioven guilty is essential in a uemociacy but the
meuia anu piess has often woikeu to put piessuie on the juuiciaiy by challenging it to
peifoim its function, inuepenuent of the contiols that might be exeiciseu by the legislatuie,
the executive oi othei outsiue paities. In this instance, the iole of meuia in a tiial is in fact
beneficial to the cause of justice, equity, faiiness anu uemociacy.

Guardian Liberty Voice, May 24, 2014.


The Contempt of Couits Act,1971 uefines when a case is sub juuice in ielation to both
ciiminal anu civil matteis (since the uate of filing FIR oi notice being sent till when the case
is uisposeu of). ueneially faii anu accuiate iepoiting on matteis that aie sub juuice is
alloweu except in instances wheie the tiial is in-cameia oi the couit has specifically
piohibiteu any coveiage. Theie aie some iestiictions in place in ielation to iepoiting on
matteis that aie sub juuice, anu this coulu leau to piosecution foi ciiminal contempt of
couit. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Couit Act, 1971 pioviues that any publication which
scanualises oi tenus to scanualise, oi loweis oi tenus to lowei the authoiity of any couit oi
inteifeies oi tenus to inteifeie with the uue couise of any juuicial pioceeuing oi obstiucts
oi tenus to obstiuct, the auministiation of justice in any othei mannei constitutes ciiminal
contempt.

The self iegulatoiy guiuelines of the NBA offei piotection to inuiviuuals with iegaiu to
theii iuentity. The guiuelines iecommenu that no iepoitage shoulu peimit the victim oi
peipetiatoi to be iecognizable oi iuentifieu via the coveiage of an inciuent, if theie is a
ielevant civil, ciiminal oi family couit case. Foi moie on this issue see the section on
Contempt of Couit.

U,-3*1(+(#;83 8#9>39 F0;8(H (*1393)1V
The Content Ceitification Rules of 2uu8 unuei Cable Tv Netwoiks (Regulation) Act, 199S
uefines "iuentifiable laigei public inteiest" in the following way - "Iuentifiable laigei public
inteiest" incluue ievealing oi uetecting ciime oi uisieputable behavioui; piotecting public
health oi safety; exposing misleauing claims maue by inuiviuuals oi oiganizations; oi
uisclosing significant incompetence in public office foi the laigei public inteiest. The iules
also state that the bioaucasteis have to justify an infiingement of piivacy then the
bioaucastei shoulu be able to uemonstiate that the public inteiest outweighs the iight to
piivacy. It also makes cleai that the iuentity of inuiviuuals in ceitain instances, paiticulaily
in the cases of minois, victims of sexual violence oi uieaueu uiseases like BIvAIBS oi

28
(1997) 8 SCC 386

natuial oi othei uisasteis, has to be piotecteu unless theie is an iuentifiable public inteiest
at stake. The iules incluue the Bioaucasting Seivice Pioviuei anu holu them liable foi any
invasion of piivacy that might take place, which is not outweigheu by laigei public inteiest.

Bowevei "iuentifiable public inteiest" is uefineu in the context cuiiently of sting opeiations
anu uo not take into account the vaiious ways in which eithei leaks oi othei uisclosuies of
piivate infoimation can take place. The ueciueu case law on sting opeiations uoes not
cleaily lay uown piinciples in ielation to "iuentifiable public inteiest", legality anu
peimissibility of sting opeiations. 0ui iecommenuation woulu be that the notion of public
inteiest be ueteimineu on the basis of piinciples that aie in accoiuance with funuamental
iights anu uuties, that it be ueteimineu on a case-to-case basis anu alongsiue theie have to
be stiongei laws anu iemeuies that piotect the iight of piivacy of an inuiviuual.








,,,C D3H&''3*-#1(&*) D38#1(*> 1& 163 "#$ &+ @3+#'#1(&*

Theie aie two majoi flaws in the cuiient iegime of Befamation Law in Inuia: Fiist, that
Befamation is punishable both as a civil anu ciiminal offence, as opposeu to being confineu
as a civil offence; anu Seconu, that Civil Befamation is often misuseu to intimiuate
jouinalists anu othei inuiviuuals.
In the couise of oui submissions, we will elaboiate on both points anu concluue with
suggesteu iecommenuations.

QC _O398#FF(*> %(O(8 #*- %9('(*#8 @3+#'#1(&* "#$)
Inuia's piesent law of uefamation is a colonial legacy: while the civil law of uefamation was
intiouuceu as pait of the Inuian common law, the ciiminal law of uefamation was fiist
intiouuceu by Loiu Nacaulay in 18S7 befoie its cuiient iteiation in the Inuian Penal Coue
uating back to 186u. As pioviueu foi unuei Section 499 of the Penal Coue, uefamation
coveis "woius eithei spoken oi intenueu to be ieau oi ... signs anu visible iepiesentation."
The offence of uefamation takes place when these constitute an imputation which is maue
oi publisheu "conceining any peison intenuing to haim, oi knowing oi having ieason to
believe that such imputation will haim, the ieputation of such peison." Section Suu makes
this punishable by simple impiisonment foi a peiiou which may extenu to two yeais, oi
with a fine, oi both.
Nouein ciiminal uefamation law haiks back to the 16th centuiy English Stai Chambei, a
secietive couit that sat in closeu session on cases involving state secuiity. The Chambei
neeueu to contiol statements about the ciown in a moie effective mannei than was
alloweu by civil uefamation laws, piemising its law on the notion that uefamation bieacheu
the peace. So ciucial was the piemium on bieach of the peace that any kinu of statement
that thieateneu it was to be punishable, iiiespective of whethei it was tiue oi not.
As is cleai fiom the mannei in which uefamation is uefineu in the Inuian Penal Coue, it uoes
not take into account this justification in any mannei. The uefinition is a bioau
encompassment of haim to ieputation, with no link to a thieat to the bieach of peace. In
fact, as Rajeev Bhawan notes, Nacaulay was cleai in that he uiu not want to limit the
offence to cases wheie theie was a thieat to the bieach of peace, anu sought to ensuie that

it woulu be an offence foi "one iogue to speak the tiuth about anothei iogue unuei the
influence of passions existing in the couise of a quaiiel."
29
Bhawan points out that this was
cleaily an invitation foi Inuians to tiansfoim minoi quaiiels into ciiminal cases.
The piesent ciiminal law of uefamation has pioceeueu uown this logic of encapsulating any
anu all uisputes into the uomain of ciiminal law, uespite a iecommenuation by the Fiist
Piess Commission of 19S2-S4 that ciiminal uefamation be piosecutable only if theie was a
thieat of the bieach of peace.
A stiong case can be maue foi unconstitutionality of the ciiminal uefamation law. Aiticle
19(1)(a) of the Inuian Constitution guaiantees citizens the iight to fieeuom of speech anu
expiession, which is subject to ieasonable iestiictions encompasseu unuei Aiticle 19(2),
which incluue those ielating to public oiuei, uefamation oi incitement to an offence.
The fiist significant phiase heie is "ieasonable iestiiction". As uiscusseu by the Supieme
Couit in Bennett Coleman v. 0nion of Inuia,
Su
iestiiction shoulu aim at iegulation as
uistinguisheu fiom complete contiol. The Couit fuithei notes that the iestiiction imposeu
shoulu not be in excess of the iequiiement, i.e. that it must be piopoitionate.
Baseu on these ciiteiia, ciiminalizing uefamatoiy speech is cleaily beyonu the pale of being
a ieasonable iestiiction: a ciiminal sanction amounts to a complete piohibition, anu it is
one that is vastly uispiopoitionate to the economic natuie of the possible haim that
uefamatoiy speech may cause to ieputation. The simultaneous existence of a civil law of
uefamation only seives to highlight the giossly uispiopoitionate natuie of imposing such a
liability on inuiviuuals foi what they might speak oi wiite. As opposeu to a civil suit, a
ciiminal case can actively iesult in uepiivation of a peison's libeity, not to mention the
veiy uistinct stigma that acciues to an inuiviuual stampeu with a ciiminal iecoiu. The 0N
Buman Rights Commission has also highlighteu the uispiopoitionate penalty that aiises
fiom sentencing a peison to piison foi uefamation, with the Special Rappoiteuis stating in
1992: "Betention, as a negative sanction foi the peaceful expiession of opinion, is one of the

29
Rajeev Dhawan, Private Lives and Public Reputations: Career and Prospects of the Law of
Defamation in India
30
AIR 1973 SC 106

most iepiehensible piactices employeu to silence people anu accoiuingly constitutes a
seiious violation of human iights."
S1

We thus iecommenu that Section 499 anu Section Suu of the Inuian Penal Coue which
make uefamation a ciiminal offence be stiuck uown.

ZC 78#$3- 93>('3 &+ %(O(8 "#$ &+ @3+#'#1(&*
Beyonu the pioblems inheient in ciiminalizing uefamatoiy speech, we must also contenu
with the gioss misuse of civil uefamation laws in the countiy. To take an example fiom
2u11, a Rs. Su cioie suit was fileu by the Inuian Institute of Planning anu Nanagement
against Caiavan magazine publication of a piece on IIPN's heau, Aiinuam Chauuhaii. It isn't
meiely the fact that the uamages iequesteu weie of such a vastly intimiuatoiy natuie: the
suit in the iemote iegion of Silchai in Assam, as opposeu to Belhi, wheie both IIPN, anu the
magazine's publishei, Belhi Piess weie baseu. The sole intent of this stiategy was to make
the piocess as uifficult foi the uefenuant as possible.
When it comes to such misuse, it isn't meiely the mainstieam piess which is vulneiable. To
take anothei example with the same institute: In 2uuS, Rashmi Bansal's magazine }AN ian
an "expose" unveiling the tiuth behinu claims maue by IIPN, which then uemanueu Rs. 2S
cioie fiom hei foi the piesumeu loss of goouwill. In quick succession, uauiav Sabnis an
IBN Inuia employee posteu his iie-filleu ieactions to the inciuent along with a link to the
}AN aiticle on his web page. IIPN puisueu him with a legal notice foi a Rs. 12S cioie suit.

Bhawan uses the Ameiican acionym of SLAPP - Stiategic Lawsuit Against Public
Paiticipation, to uesciibe this phenomenon: "It is a stiategy useu to put people on notice,
ensnaie them in the legal piocess, put them thiough all the tioubles anu hassles this
involves, anu make them give up theii cause if not silence them foievei." When it comes to
a SLAPP suit, theie is no question of the meiits of the legal claim, anu in most cases the
plaintiff will be well awaie of the fact that the ultimate uecision will not lie in theii favoui.
The entiie puipose is to use the legal piocess against the uefenuant: in othei woius, it is
the piocess that becomes the punishment.

31
http://service.cms.apa.at/cms/ipi/statements_detail.html?ctxid=CH0055&docid=CMS11442394


Wheie might the gaps be filleu.
0ne avenue coulu be in teims of couifying the civil law of uefamation anu pioviuing a
stiictei uefinition of what constitutes haim: foi example, the 0K Befamation Act of 2u1S
only penalizes "seiious haim", i.e. haim to the ieputation of a bouy that tiaues foi piofit is
not "seiious haim" unless it has causeu oi is likely to cause the bouy seiious financial loss.
Anothei coulu be to have sanctions be put in place foi complaints that may be ueemeu
fiivolous oi that constitute vexatious litigation. Both these measuies woulu seive as checks
on the abuse of the legal piocess.

%&*H80)(&*
Baseu on oui analysis, we iecommenu the following:
A. Repeal Section 499 anu Suu of the Inuian Penal Coue peitaining to ciiminalization of
uefamation.
B. Couify the civil law of uefamation to pioviue foi a stiictei uefinition of haim to
ieputation.
C. Put in place sanctions foi fiivolous complaints anu vexatious litigation.


87915

,`C 29(#8 ;N '3-(# #*- 163 D(>61 1& # 7#(9 29(#8

The contempoiaiy meuia lanuscape is one in which bieaking news necessaiily bieaks
twenty foui by seven with a piemium placeu on velocity anu this often tianslates- in the
case of ciiminal tiials -into a meuia ciicus that conuucts its own investigation, paiiots
piosecution accounts oi in some cases cieates speculative conspiiacy theoiies of its own.
The uemanu foi immeuiate news anu analysis also conflicts with the compaiatively slow
piocess of law in which tiials coulu go on foi yeais. In the post 911 woilu wheie teiioiist
attacks have moipheu into meuia events we have seen the news channels become instant
expeits analyzing events even as they unfolu, iuentifying peipetiatois within houis of the
events anu in some cases cieating uiamatizeu ieenactments even as the tiial is unueiway.
0ne of the most egiegious instances of the violation of the iight to faii tiial was aftei the
pailiament attack case when vaiious news channels pionounceu the guilt of Piof. S A R
ueelani naming him the masteiminu of the attack even befoie the tiial hau begun. Zee
television's tacky ieconstiuction of the pailiament attack case, which was allegeuly baseu
on the chaige sheet, went well beyonu the piosecution's case in the couit anu it poitiayeu
ueelani as the masteiminu anu showeu scenes of him talking to the five ueau attackeis anu
planning the attack. Nanuita Baksais says "The film was shown to the Piime Ninistei anu
then the Bome Ninistei, anu the meuia iecoiueu theii appioval of the film. ueelani's
lawyeis moveu the couit anu the Bigh Couit uiu stay the bioaucast. Zee Tv moveu the
Supieme Couit. The coipoiation was less conceineu with the piotection of the fieeuom of
speech anu expiession than with the possibility of losing money. The Supieme Couit
vacateu the stay anu the entiie nation watcheu the film a few uays befoie the Besignateu
Couit sentenceu ueelani to ueath".
S2


This stoiy has been iepeateu au nauseam anu iemains faiily consistent: this iemaikable
ability of the meuia to solve cases even befoie the police begin theii investigation woulu

32
Nandita Haksar, Tried by the Media: The SAR Geelani Trial, Sarai Reader 04: Crisis Media,
159. See also Syed Bismillah Geelani. Manufacturing Terrorism: Kashmiri Encounters with
Media and the Law. Bibliophile South Asia, 2006

have been almost enteitaining weie it not foi the fatal consequences that this can have foi
the iights of the accuseu.
SS

While the piinciple of 'innocent until pioven guilty' is assumeu to be one of the beuiocks of
a uemociatic legal system, the fact of the mattei is that this is a tiuism that exists only on
papei anu in ieality the ciiminal justice system is often heavily loaueu against people who
aie accuseu of ciimes. In theii book on faii tiials anu fiee speech, Biuschke anu Loges
aigue that the piesumption of innocence in the legal system iionically iepiesents oui
collective awaieness of oui bias against uefenuants. They asseit "The uefenuant's height
anu weight uon't uepenu on the attituue of the juiy, but the uefenuant's piesumption of
innocence uoes. We put this piesumption in oui legal coue to ieminu ouiselves, as juiois
anu even as victims, that we must withholu juugment until eviuence is piesenteu because
we aie tempteu to inuulge a bias against people accuseu of ciimes. We know ouiselves too
well" (Biuschke anu Loges xiii).


263 D(>61 1& 7#(9 29(#8 (* # F&)1 '3-(#1(X3- 8#*-)H#F3

Bionwyn Nayloi suggests that the coveiage of ciiminal tiials involving violence poses a
seiious challenge to the auministiation of justice by the viitue of the kinu of naiiatives that
aie ueployeu (in meuia anu in law) when it comes to ciiminal tiials. violent acts uemanu a
naiiative explanation anu the mouein piess has thiiveu on its coveiage of violence since it
"incoipoiates the uiama, the human emotion, the shatteiing of "noimal" expectations,
which aie iequiieu foi a stoiy to be newswoithy".
S4
Anu yet at the same time given the
paucity of facts, the contiauictoiy natuie of legal eviuence the piocess of the tiial in fact
hinges on competing naiiatives anu the question is whethei the meuia chooses to piivilege
the naiiative of the piosecution oi the uefence.

33
See for instance the consistent work done by Ajit Sahi in uncovering the ways in which young
Muslim men have been framed over and over again in cases related to the banned organization
SIMI
34
Bronwyn Naylor, FAIR TRIAL OR FREE PRESS: LEGAL RESPONSES TO MEDIA
REPORTS OF CRIMINAL TRIALS, 53 Cambridge L.J. 492 1994

The iight to faii tiial has a long anu iich histoiy which can be tiaceu all the way back to the
Nagna Caita as the stoiy of a haiu won iight that seives as the only guaiantee against the
impunity of state violence (Linebaugh; Banaszak). In Inuia the iight to faii tiial has been
iecognizeu as being an integial pait of the iight to life in Ait. 21 as well as the iight against
self inciimination in Ait 2u of the constitution. Any pioceeuing which inteifeies with the
'auministiation of justice' is actionable unuei the Contempt of Couits Act. The Supieme
Couit has been unequivocal in its iecognition of the fact that a tiial by piess, electionic
meuia oi by way of a public agitation is the veiy anti-thesis of iule of law anu can leau to
miscaiiiage of justice
SS
anu have uigeu that meuia coveiage of ongoing tiials shoulu at no
cost inteifeie with the essentials of a faii tiial incluuing the piesumption of innocence of
the accuseu unless founu guilty at the enu of the tiial.
S6


The iuea of a meuia tiial uoes not begin with bioaucast meuia anu has been aiounu fiom
the time of the piess but the pioblem of the inteifeience by the piess with the piocess of
ciiminal justice takes on an acceleiateu uimension in the eia of bioaucast meuia anu the
inteinet. The Supieme Couit iecognizeu the uangeis of newspapeis iunning paiallel
investigations as eaily as 1961 when it iefeiieu to 'tiial by piess' even befoie the
enactment of the Contempt of Couit of 1971. In Saibal v. B.K. Sen
S7
it saiu:

\Q% @.739 8" 6)-#:)"?.7- 0.$ & /"@-<&<"$ %. -'-%"6&%)#&33' #./97#% &/ )/9"<"/9"/%
)/?"-%)2&%)./ )/%. & #$)6" 0.$ @:)#: & 6&/ :&- 8""/ &$$"-%"9 &/9 %. <783)-: %:" $"-73%- .0 %:"
)/?"-%)2&%)./A E:)- )- 8"#&7-"= %$)&3 8' /"@-<&<"$-= @:"/ & %$)&3 8' ./" .0 %:" $"273&$ %$)87/&3
)- 2.)/2 ./= 67-% 8" <$"?"/%"9A E:" 8&-)- 0.$ %:)- ?)"@ )- %:&% -7#: &#%)./ ./ %:" <&$% .0 %:"
/"@-<&<"$ %"/9- %. )/%"$0"$" @)%: %:" #.7$-" .0 >7-%)#"CA

In 1961 the goveinment constituteu the Sanyal Committeee which biought out its iepoit
on contempt of couit anu its iepoit hau unueiplayeu the iole of publication in a newspapei
piejuuicing the auministiation of justice stating that since Inuia was a vast countiy anu

35
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi : 1997 (8) SCC 386.
36
Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India, 1996(6) SCC 354
37
AIR 1961 SC 633

what is publisheu in one pait is not accessible to people in anothei pait of the countiy. The
committee's unueistanuing of meuia aiose at a time when the newspapei ievolution hau
not taken place much less the electionic meuia boom that we have witnesseu in the last
two uecaues. 0ne can contiast the peiception of the powei of the meuia as imagineu by the
Sanyal committee with an account of meuia in the eaily 2uuu's by the Belhi high couit.

In Suiya Piakash Khatii v. Smt. Nauhu Tiehan,
S8
the couit uesciibeu the powei of the piess
using vaiious metaphois of weapons incluuing 'nucleai powei', 'loaueu gun' etc. aiguing
that the meuia hau a much gieatei uuty of caie anu caution in publishing a potentially
uamaging piece. Acknowleuging the tiansfoimeu meuia lanuscape, the couit stateu

E:" "9)%.$ .0 & /"@-<&<"$ .$ & >.7$/&3 :&- & 2$"&%"$ $"-<./-)8)3)%' %. 27&$9 &2&)/-%
7/%$7%:073 /"@- &/9 <783)#&%)./- 0.$ %:" -)6<3" $"&-./ %:&% :)- 7%%"$&/#"- :&?" & 0&$ 2$"&%"$
#)$#73&%)./ &/9 )6<&#% %:&/ %:" 7%%"$&/#"- .0 &/ )/9)?)97&3 &/9 8' $"&-./ .0 %:")$ &<<"&$)/2
)/ <$)/%= %:"' &$" 3)*"3' %. 8" )- %. "?"$' /..* &/9 #.$/"$ .0 %:" @.$39= <&$%)#73&$3' %:"-" 9&'-
@:"/ @" :&?" DKR:.7$ /"@- #:&//"3- &/9 @"8#&-%- ./ %:" Q/%"$/"%A

Similaily in B.N. Piasau v. Piincipal Secietaiy,
S9
the couit aigueu that the natuie of
electionic meuia was such that theie was veiy little filteiing that takes place anu news
ieaches peisons iegaiuless of theii age anu capacity of compiehension.

It is in light of the peivasive natuie of electionic meuia that the couits have evolveu vaiious
piinciples anu ciiteiia by which they evaluate whethei the meuia has the potential of
violating a peison iight to faii tiial. In a numbei of cases on the ielationship between meuia
publicity anu the tiial piocess the couits have evolveu a set of noimative giounus baseu on
which they uisplay a healthy suspicion of meuia.

QC G0;8(H '(*- (*+803*H3- ;N '3-(# 19(#8E F0;8(H F93^0->(*> ())03


38
92 (2001) DLT 665 (FB)

0ne of the fiist piinciples uevelopeu by the couit is the auveise influence that meuia
iepiesentations have in piejuuicing the minu of the public. This was stiongly stateu by the
Belhi high couit in the context of the Nitesh Kataia muiuei case which hau ieceiveu a lot of
meuia publicity. The couit aigueu

E:" *)/9 .0 6"9)& %$)&3 @:)#: )- 2.)/2 ./ )/ %:)- #.7/%$' #$"&%"- 8)&- /.% ./3' )/ %:" 6)/9- .0
%:" 2"/"$&3 <783)# 87% &3-. ?)%)&%"- %:" &%6.-<:"$" &/9 %:)- #"$%&)/3' :&- %:" %"/9"/#' %. <7%
<$"--7$" ./ %:" U&2)-%$&%" .$ %:" !"--)./- G792" .$ ./ %:" #.7$%= @:)3" %&*)/2 9"#)-)./-= @:)#:
)- /.% & :"&3%:' -)2/ 0.$ 9"?"3.<6"/% .0 #$)6)/&3 >7$)-<$79"/#"A U"9)& 9."- /.% */.@ @:&%
:&$6 %:" 6"9)& )- 9.)/2 8' :&?)/2 & <&$&33"3 %$)&3 &/9 $"<.$%)/2 %:" <$.#""9)/2- )/ & 6&//"$
8' 2)?)/2 %:" /"@- @:)#: &$" 9"%$)6"/%&3 -.6"%)6"- %. %:" &##7-"9 @:. )- 0&#)/2 %$)&3 &/9
-.6"%)6"- "?"/ %. %:" <$.-"#7%)./A G792"- &$" &3-. :76&/ 8")/2- &/9 @:"/ :7" &/9 #$' )-
6&9" 8' %:" 6"9)& )% )- <.--)83" %:&% %:" "h7)3)8$)76 .0 & G792" )- &3-. 9)-%7$8"9A Q% )- :)2:
%)6" %:&% 7/9"$ %:" 2&$8 .0 0$""9.6 .0 <$"-- %:" <&$&33"3 <$.#""9)/2- .0 6"9)& <".<3" )/
#$)6)/&3 %$)&3 -:.739 -%.< )66"9)&%"3'A 5" &3-. @&/% %. "6<:&-)- %:" /""9 .0 6&)/%&)/)/2
>.7$/&3)-%)# 9)-#)<3)/" )/ $"<.$%)/2 #&-"-A E:" 0$""9.6 .0 <$"-- 9."- /.% 3&' )/ :)2:3)2:%)/2 &
/"@- .0 #.66"$#)&3 ?&37" .$ @:)#: )- .0 -"/-&%)./&3 ?&37"A U"9)& :&- & /&%)./&3 97%' %.
:)2:3)2:% /"@- @:)#: &$" 0.$ 9"?"3.<6"/%&3 @.$* &/9 )--7"- @:)#: #./#"$/- .7$ <".<3" &/9
%:" -.#)"%' &% 3&$2"A ]b. /"@-] )- & /"@- 0.$ 6"9)& &/9 ]%:" /"@-] )- /. /"@- 0.$ %:" 6"9)&A E:"
0.7/9)/2 0&%:"$- .0 .7$ (./-%)%7%)./ :&?" /.% %:.72:% .0 %:" 0$""9.6 .0 <$"-- )/ %:)- #./%"B%A
Kd


In a iathei canuiu moment the couits acknowleuge theii own susceptibility to the
influences of meuia iepoitage. This is in shaip contiast with eailiei positions in which the
juuiciaiy has tenueu to uesciibe itself in tianscenuental teims claiming that unlike laymen
who aie influenceu by what they see in meuia, it is inconceivable foi juuges to be
influenceu eithei consciously by what they ieau oi see.
41
In Englanu the couits have uiawn

39
2005 Cri LJ 1901
40
Indian Council Of Legal Aid And ... vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi),
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1802633/ (Last accessed on 10
th
July 2013)
41
In the P.C. Sen case for instance the courts held that The learned Judge observed that he was
not prejudiced by the speech against the petitioners before him, since he was only "concerned
with the constitutional and legal validity of the Control Order, and incidentally only with its

a uistinction between the possibilities of influence when it comes to questions of law
against cases wheie questions of facts oi eviuence is at play anu have helu that it is moie
likely foi a juuge to be influenceu at the tiial stage than at an appeal stage.
42



ZC G93^0-(H(*> 163 F93)0'F1(&* &+ ,**&H3*H3

The piesumption of innocence is one of those iionical iights which has passeu into clich
even as it iemains one of the most uifficult iights to substantively achieve. The Supieme
couit in Ranjitsing Biahmajeetsing Shaima v. State of Nahaiashtia
4S
has consiueieu it to be
a human iight holuing that if in a given case any appiopiiate Couit finus infiingement of
such piesumption by excessive piejuuicial publicity by the newspapeis (in geneial), then
unuei inheient poweis, can pass oiueis of postponement of publication foi a limiteu
peiiou if the applicant is able to uemonstiate substantial iisk of piejuuice to the penuing
tiial anu pioviueu he is able to uisplace the piesumption of open justice anu to that extent
the buiuen will be on the applicant who seeks such postponement of offenuing publication.
At the inteinational level the Euiopean couit of human iights has iuleu that the
piesumption of innocence shoulu be employeu as a noimative paiametei in the mattei of
balancing the iight to a faii tiial against claims of fieeuom of speech anu expiession. Aiticle
6(2) of the Euiopean Convention of Buman Rights imposes a positive obligation on the
State to take action to piotect the piesumption of innocence fiom inteifeience by non-State
actois. Bowevei, in a catena of uecisions, the ECBR has applieu the piinciple of
piopoitionality to pievent imposition of oveiieaching iestiictions on the meuia."

The meuia iepoitage of teiioiism cases uo not just piejuuice the piesumption of innocence
but often actively cieates a piesumption of absolute guilt. When investigative jouinalism is
ieplaceu by the meuia paiioting police biiefs theie is veiy little hope foi the piesumption

socio-economic justification", but it could' not be said that the speech did not or could not or
was not likely to prejudice the public against the cause of the petitioners.
42
Regina v. Duffey and others Ex Parte Nash([1960] 2 Q.B.D. 188
43
(2005) 5 SCC 294]. See also Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp (20 SCC 130

of innocence to suivive. Teiming the taigeting of gioups like SINI as the Kafka pioject, Ajit
Sahi pioviues us with a chilling naiiative of the compiomise of the legal piocess.
44


The embeuueu jouinalism in teiioi cases opens out the question on how we uiaw the line
between the public inteiest function of the meuia anu the inteiests of publicity which fuels
much of what they uo(Kaui anu Nazzaiella). The slightly peiveise inteiest that the meuia
has in peipetuating 'piofitable piovocations' has also been acknowleugeu by the couits anu
in a case involving Zee telefilms,
4S
the couit concluueu that often the meuia conveys what
the 'public is inteiesteu in' iathei than what is in 'public inteiest'. They helu that fieeuom
of the piess shoulu not uegeneiate into a licence to attack litigants anu close the uooi of
justice noi can it incluue any uniestiicteu libeity to uamage the ieputation of iespectable
peisons." The couit in this case also citeu Anuiew Belsey's opinion ueciying the state of
affaiis wheie the piessuies associateu with a business whose main job is to be the latest
stoiy in which the 'temptation to piint tiivial stoiies salaciously piesenteu' is veiy high.

[19(S(*> # ;#8#*H3 ;31$33* +933 )F33H6 #*- 163 9(>61 1& +#(9 29(#8

The iight to piivacy anu the iight to faii tiial constitute one of the faultiness that uiviues
libeial activists who uemanu gieatei fieeuom of speech anu expiession. 0nlike tiauitional
censoiship cases which pits the question of fieeuom against iestiaints the battle between
fiee speech anu the iight to a faii tiial becomes a question of two competing iights anu the
aujuuication of the balance between the two can be a tiicky one. In oui opinion one of the
ueteimining piinciple shoulu be the ielative position of stiength oi uisauvantage of each of
the paities. If fieeuom of speech has been piemiseu on piotecting the iights of inuiviuuals
against the powei of the state it is impoitant to iemembei that most accuseu peisons aie
up against a hostile ciiminal justice system anu an extiemely poweiful actoi in the foim of
meuia anu if theie is a uiiect conflict between the iights of the accuseu anu the iight to

44
Ajit Sahi, The Kafka Project, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 32, Dated Aug 16, 2008, also
Ajit Sahi, The Cry Of The Beloved Country, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 32, Dated Aug 16,
2008. (Last accessed on 10
th
July 2013)
45
Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd v. Zee Telefilms, AIR 2005 Delhi 195

fiees speech of meuia, it shoulu be the iight to faii tiial that pievails. This is of couise not
an easy solution as the piinciples of a faii tiial also incluue accuiate iepoitage anu the
meuia can play an impoitant watchuog function in ensuiing that theie is no violation of any
uue piocess of law.

In an olu constitutional commentaiy, Cooley aigues that the iequiiement of a public tiial is
foi the benefit of the accuseu; it is in oiuei to ensuie that the public may see he is faiily
uealt with anu not unjustly conuemneu, anu that the piesence of inteiesteu spectatois may
keep his tiieis keenly alive to a sense of theii iesponsibility anu to the impoitance of theii
functions; anu the iequiiement is faiily obseiveu if, without paitiality oi favoiitism, a
ieasonable piopoition of the public is suffeieu to attenu, notwithstanuing that those pei-
sons whose piesence coulu be of no seivice to the accuseu, anu who woulu only be uiawn
thithei by a piuiient cuiiosity, aie excluueu altogethei.
46
The iuea of an open tiial which is
also one of the basis of the claims of fiee speech anu iepoitage is giounueu on the iights of
the accuseu anu not a iight that is inheient in anu of itself.

A constitutional bench in Sahaia Inuia Real Estate v. SEBI
47
hau the oppoitunity to consiuei
the appioach of uiffeient juiisuictions to the question of balance between these competing
claims. Examining uiffeient appioaches to the question of whethei theie can be any piioi
iestiaints imposeu on the coveiage of a juuicial piocess the couit obseiveu that in the 0S
speech is piivilegeu ovei any othei iight anu as a iule theie aie no piioi iestiaints that aie
imposeu. But in the context of the hypeu meuia attention on cases like the 0 } Simpson tiial,
couits have evolveu pioceuuial uevices aimeu at neutializing the effect of piejuuicial
publicity like change of venue, oiueiing ie-tiial, ieveisal of conviction on appeal etc. In
contiast to the 0S, the 0K appioach piivileges the auministiation of justice ovei the iight to
fiee speech. In theii summaiy, the Supime Couit uesciibes the English appioach as the
'Piotecting }ustice' appioach, aiguing that faii tiials anu public confiuence in the couits as
the piopei foium foi settlement of uisputes as pait of the auministiation of justice, unuei
the common law aie given gieatei weight than the goals seiveu by uniestiaineu fieeuom of

46
Cooley, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS 380-81 (5th ed. 1883).

the piess. The Euiopean mouel is goveineu by a peisonality appioach wheiein the concein
is less to uo with the issue of faii tiial than with the neeu foi safeguaiuing piivacy, peisonal
uignity anu piesumption of innocence of tiial paiticipants. The unueilying assumption of
this mouel is that the meuia coveiage of penuing tiials might be at ouus not only with
faiiness anu impaitiality of the pioceeuings but also with othei inuiviuual anu societal
inteiests. Thus, naiiowly focusseu piioi iestiaints aie pioviueu foi, on eithei a statutoiy oi
juuicial basis. Finally they examine the Canauian position which eailiei tilteu towaius the
iight to faii tiial ovei the iight to fiee speech saw a shift with the intiouuction of the
Canauian chaitei of iights which explicitly guaianteeu 'fieeuom of the piess anu othei
meuia of communication' anu the Canauian couits now have to stiive foi a balance
between the two iights.

Summaiizing the Inuian position the couits state that iestiictions places on fiee speech in
the inteiests of the auministiation of justice aie ieasonable unuei Ait. 19(2) anu that it also
satisfies the test laiu uown by the couit in the R.Rajagopal case.
48
Accoiuing to the couit

\iAA)/ 6.-% #.66./ 3&@ >7$)-9)#%)./-= 9)-#$"%)./ )- 2)?"/ %. %:" #.7$%- %. "?.3?" /"7%$&3);)/2
9"?)#"- 7/9"$ #./%"6<% >7$)-9)#%)./ -7#: &- <.-%<./"6"/% .0 %:" %$)&3= $"R%$)&3-= #:&/2" .0
?"/7" &/9 )/ &<<$.<$)&%" #&-"- "?"/ %. 2$&/% &#h7)%%&3- )/ #&-"- .0 "B#"--)?" 6"9)& <$">79)#)&3
<783)#)%'A E:" ?"$' .8>"#% 8":)/9 "6<.@"$)/2 %:" #.7$%- %. 9"?)-" -7#: 6"%:.9- )- %. -"" %:&%
%:" &96)/)-%$&%)./ .0 >7-%)#" )- /.% <"$?"$%"9= <$">79)#"9= .8-%$7#%"9 .$ )/%"$0"$"9 @)%:A ,% %:"
-&6" %)6"= %:"$" )- & <$"-76<%)./ .0 M<"/ G7-%)#" 7/9"$ %:" #.66./ 3&@A E:"$"0.$"= #.7$%-
:&?" "?.3?"9 6"#:&/)-6- -7#: &- <.-%<./"6"/% .0 <783)#)%' %. 8&3&/#" <$"-76<%)./ .0
)//.#"/#"= @:)#: )- /.@ $"#.2/);"9 &- & :76&/ $)2:% )/ j&/>)%-)/2 1$&:6&>""%-)/2 !:&$6& ?A
!%&%" .0 U&:&$&-:%$& Y-7<$&Z ?)-R&R?)- <$"-76<%)./ .0 M<"/ G7-%)#"A !7#: &/ .$9"$ .0
<.-%<./"6"/% :&- %. 8" <&--"9 ./3' @:"/ .%:"$ &3%"$/&%)?" 6"&-7$"- -7#: &- #:&/2" .0 ?"/7"
.$ <.-%<./"6"/% .0 %$)&3 &$" /.% &?&)3&83"A Q/ <&--)/2 -7#: .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/%= #.7$%-
:&?" %. *""< )/ 6)/9 %:" <$)/#)<3" .0 <$.<.$%)./&3)%' &/9 %:" %"-% .0 /"#"--)%'A E:" &<<3)#&/%
@:. -""*- .$9"$ .0 <.-%<./"6"/% .0 <783)#)%' 67-% 9)-<3&#" %:" <$"-76<%)./ .0 M<"/ G7-%)#"

47
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/182016928/

&/9 ./3' )/ -7#: #&-"- %:" :)2:"$ #.7$%- -:&33 <&-- %:" .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/% 7/9"$ ,$%)#3"
4DWF,$%)#3" D4O .0 %:" (./-%)%7%)./A !7#: .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/% .0 <783)#)%' -:&33 8" <&--"9
0.$ & 3)6)%"9 <"$).9 &/9 -78>"#% %. %:" #.7$%- "?&37&%)/2 )/ "&#: #&-" %:" /"#"--)%' %. <&--
-7#: .$9"$- /.% ./3' )/ %:" #./%"B% .0 &96)/)-%$&%)./ .0 >7-%)#" 87% &3-. )/ %:" #./%"B% .0 %:"
$)2:%- .0 %:" )/9)?)97&3- %. 8" <$.%"#%"9 0$.6 <$">79)#)&3 <783)#)%' .$ 6)-R )/0.$6&%)./= )/
.%:"$ @.$9-= @:"$" %:" #.7$% )- -&%)-0)"9 %:&% ,$%)#3" D4 $)2:%- .0 & <"$-./ &$" .00"/9"9C


Wile the couits have sought to evolve piinciples that balances between the iight to fiee
speech anu the iight to faii tiial, they have been a lot moie waiy of aiguments baseu on the
iight to know when it competes with faii tiial. In the R K Ananu case
49
the Belhi high couit
sought to lay uown a set of piinciples that shoulu govein the ielationship between meuia
iepoitage anu faii tiial. A few of the key piinciples incluue:

2. Nost people tenu to believe what is publisheu in the mass meuia making it necessaiy foi
the meuia to ensuie that what is being publisheu is accuiate. In iespect of a potentially
uamaging publication, the meuia cannot feign ignoiance oi pleau that it uiu not know that
it hau a 'loaueu gun'
S. The concept of self-iegulation of the meuia appeais to be a myth. Theie will always be a
uebate about whethei, in a given case, the meuia has tiansgiesseu its limits so as to invite
an injunction oi latei an action foi contempt of Couit. The less fiequently this happens, the
bettei it is foi an oiueieu society.
4. 0nce pioceeuings have begun in a couit of law oi aie otheiwise imminent, the meuia has
no iole to play in the foim of 'investigative jouinalism' oi as a fact finuei. The mattei then
iests entiiely within the uomain of the Couit, litigants anu theii lawyeis no mattei how
long the litigation lasts. The meuia ought to keep its hanus off an active case.
S. It follows fiom the above that befoie a cause is instituteu in a Couit of law, oi is
otheiwise not imminent, the meuia has full play in the mattei of legitimate investigative
jouinalism. This is in accoiu with oui Constitutional piinciple of fieeuom of speech anu

48
(1994) 6 SCC 632

expiession anu is in consonance with the iight anu uuty of the meuia to iaise issues of
public concein anu inteiest. This is also in haimony with a citizen's iight to know
paiticulaily about events ielating to the investigation in a case, oi uelay in investigation oi
soft- peualing on investigations peitaining to matteis of public concein anu impoitance.
6. When a cause is penuing in Couit, the meuia may only iepoit faiily, tiuly, faithfully anu
accuiately the pioceeuings in the Couit, without any semblance of bias towaius one oi the
othei paity. The meuia may also make a faii comment in a penuing cause without violating
the sub-juuice iule.
9. In the auministiation of justice, no balancing act is peimissible. It is not peimissible to
contenu that the public inteiest oi the iight to know outweighs the auministiation of
justice. Such a view may shake the veiy stiuctuial founuations of an impaitial justice
ueliveiy system.

_* # F390)#8 &+ 163 F9(*H(F83) 8#(- -&$* ;N 163 H&091). (* &09 &F(*(&*. 163 8#$
H&''())(&* H&08- H&*)(-39 163 +&88&$(*> 93H&''3*-#1(&*)E


1. Theie is a neeu to evolve enfoiceable stanuaius of measuiing faiiness in the iepotting of
an ongoing legal pioceeuings especially wheie theie is a possibility that such iepoitage
coulu auveisely affect the iight to a faii tiial of an accuseu. Theie aie a few consiueiations
which ought to infoim what constitutes faiiness in such iepoiting

A. Neuia iepoitage shoulu explicitly avoiu the iole of speculating oi basing theii iepoitage
on finuings of guilt oi innocence anu stick to an unbiaseu account of the legal pioceeuings
B. Neuia shoulu uisclose its souices anu this shoulu be maue explicitly cleai especially
when it is meiely iepoiting a veision (foi instance the piosecution's account) of an ongoing
case
C. The question of tempoiality shoulu be the key to ueteimining the balance between fiee
speech anu the iight o a faii tiial. If the live iepoiting of a legal case has even the slightest

49
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1728112/

possibility of auveisely affecting the outcome of a tiial, then postponement (within a
uefineu time fiame) shoulu be the noim. The noims laiu uown in the Sahaia case aie
instiuctive. To ieiteiate

)A ,/ .$9"$ .0 <.-%<./"6"/% :&- %. 8" <&--"9 ./3' @:"/ .%:"$ &3%"$/&%)?" 6"&-7$"- -7#: &-
#:&/2" .0 ?"/7" .$ <.-%<./"6"/% .0 %$)&3 &$" /.% &?&)3&83"A
Q)A Q/ <&--)/2 -7#: .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/%= #.7$%- :&?" %. *""< )/ 6)/9 %:" <$)/#)<3" .0
<$.<.$%)./&3)%' &/9 %:" %"-% .0 /"#"--)%'A
Q))A E:" &<<3)#&/% @:. -""*- .$9"$ .0 <.-%<./"6"/% .0 <783)#)%' 67-% 9)-<3&#" %:" <$"-76<%)./
.0 M<"/ G7-%)#" &/9 ./3' )/ -7#: #&-"- %:" :)2:"$ #.7$%- -:&33 <&-- %:" .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/%
7/9"$ ,$%)#3" 4DWF,$%)#3" D4O .0 %:" (./-%)%7%)./A
Q?A !7#: .$9"$- .0 <.-%<./"6"/% .0 <783)#)%' -:&33 8" <&--"9 0.$ & 3)6)%"9 <"$).9 &/9 -78>"#% %.
%:" #.7$%- "?&37&%)/2 )/ "&#: #&-" %:" /"#"--)%' %. <&-- -7#: .$9"$- /.% ./3' )/ %:" #./%"B% .0
&96)/)-%$&%)./ .0 >7-%)#" 87% &3-. )/ %:" #./%"B% .0 %:" $)2:%- .0 %:" )/9)?)97&3- %. 8" <$.%"#%"9
0$.6 <$">79)#)&3 <783)#)%' .$ 6)-R )/0.$6&%)./= )/ .%:"$ @.$9-= @:"$" %:" #.7$% )- -&%)-0)"9 %:&%
,$%)#3" D4 $)2:%- .0 & <"$-./ &$" .00"/9"9C