tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post6295982886710208017..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: The Fourth Estate As the State? -- A Troubling Precedent by the Delhi High CourtAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-36238315252422701622013-03-12T00:19:28.316+05:302013-03-12T00:19:28.316+05:30@Prashant: Doesn't the HC have power to issue ...@Prashant: Doesn't the HC have power to issue a writ against private parties under Article 226. As far as I know, HC's have a wider writ jurisdiction under A. 226 than the SC does under A. 32. That's one of the reasons why the requirement of many an entity performing a 'public duty' have been held constitutionally responsible in various HC judgments (vaguely remember having read a few).<br /><br />In addition, with regard to compensation for constitutional infractions - violations of privacy can be undone primarily by two practical methods: public apology and compensation (as you know that once something is put out in public domain, it's irrecoverable). Therefore, the award of compensation seems justified. <br /><br />IMHO, it's a good start to a privacy law jurisprudence in India - given that the nature of reportage in India is irresponsible. Maybe this is how courts can bring about a modicum of behavioural change. Dharmendra Chaturhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10586632203227281269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-73349855772339505222013-02-19T09:13:28.658+05:302013-02-19T09:13:28.658+05:30@ Number10: The link to the judgment is embedded i...@ Number10: The link to the judgment is embedded in the post, in any case here is the link: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VS/judgement/05-02-2013/VS05022013CW127302005.pdf<br /><br />@Bhuwania: Thank you for your comment. As per my understanding, I don't think High Courts have the power to award damages under Article 226 - there are exceptions where courts have awarded compensation for human rights violation but from my understanding this is more of an exception than a rule. Of course, under Art. 226, the High Court could have ordered the Police to charge Aaj Tak for violating the provision in the IPC which protects the privacy of persons who are victims of sexual abuse. But to pass orders against Aaj Tak is pushing the law to it limits. <br /><br />@Katesaria: True as that maybe, the legal basis for the judgment is very, very shaky. Most of the precedents relied upon by the judge provide little authority for his final conclusion. In the long run, I think it can be very dangerous to regulate the media through a writ courts since such courts typically do not record evidence and lack the procedural safeguards you find in civil courts. <br /><br />Regards,<br />PrashantPrashant Reddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00745673293260292146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-69053804619545410552013-02-17T19:23:35.051+05:302013-02-17T19:23:35.051+05:30The judgement has filled void created by the Legis...The judgement has filled void created by the Legislature/Government. The judgement should be taken as another example of judicial activism. If business entities run by Government can be termed as State; then Media discharging public function can also be termed as State.Ajay Katesariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582886239651267032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-9621482860254699702013-02-17T12:14:24.636+05:302013-02-17T12:14:24.636+05:30Thank you for lively account and for drawing atten...Thank you for lively account and for drawing attention to this important case. I had a basic question- the writ was filed against a state entity- the Delhi Police. The private media enterprise Aaj Tak was only made a party as Respondent no. 3.Indeed, both the Police and Aaj Tak have been fined here. In such cases where the primary respondent is the state body but a private entity too is (necessarily and properly) made a party, can the High Court not order relief against the private body under Article 226?Anuj Bhuwaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09608457163604492439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-16613725818131372882013-02-16T11:41:03.131+05:302013-02-16T11:41:03.131+05:30Just a suggestion, could you upload a copy of the ...Just a suggestion, could you upload a copy of the decision for quick reference?<br />This is rather alarming. Will read the case now to see what it says<br />.Abhinav Sekhrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05636505529930634000noreply@blogger.com