Public interest Vs privacy: When should media draw a line?-Tue, Dec 14, 2010

Public interest Vs privacy: When should media draw a line?

Published on Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:39

| Updated at Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:58

The Supreme Court has heard Ratan Tata’s plea to protect his privacy following the leak of the Nira Radia tapes. The court at the hearing said it was critical of the media coverage and further stated that care should be taken to protect the image of individuals till the hearing of the privacy suit is completed.

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan has filed an intervention in the Tata petition. In an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18’s Menaka Doshi, he discusses the court proceedings and the statements made by the court as to why the media should refrain from tarnishing the image of individuals.


Excerpts from Your World at 10 on CNBC-TV18 Watch the full show »
RELATED NEWSNiira Radia exposé: Is it an image crisis for India Inc?
No more leaks of Radia tapes: Govt tells SC




Below is a verbatim transcript. Also watch the accompanying videos for the complete interview with Prashant Bhushan.

Q: What do you make of the proceedings in court and considering the frequency with which tapes are getting leaked and I point to the fact that a new set of tapes were apparently made available to some sections of the media as recently as Friday and across the weekend that this hearing will now continue on February 2, does that mean it offers absolutely no relief whatsoever?

A: I don’t think it offers any relief to Mr Tata. Of course, the court’s observation that the media should be careful about tarnishing the reputation of individuals was more in the context of inaccurate reporting of court proceedings, a question that they had asked about the home secretary’s statement about the Radia tapes, which have so far been aired has been only the tip of the iceberg.

They mentioned that some media channels had reported that they had wrapped the home secretary which they said was incorrect reporting and that this kind of reporting tarnishes the reputation of individuals.

As far as the Tata petition is concerned, the lawyers for Tata did not seek any restraint on the media nor is their restraint on the media, of course the media has been advised to be careful and not unnecessarily tarnish the reputation of individuals.

Q: Now that the next hearing will happen only in February, what does it mean for the ability of an individual in this country to be able to seek the right to privacy or protect his privacy?

A: Firstly, the Radia tapes which have so far come out in the public domain do not contain any personal conversations. Even the conversations of Tata with Miss Radia are not personal in nature though there might be one-two snippets which are personal in nature but they are hardly of a nature which invades his privacy.

The law on this is well settled in India. Even in the US, when the US government wanted a restraint on the media to carry the Pentagon papers which they said had security implications which would compromise US security, the US Supreme Court held that they cannot be restrained. There cannot be any gag order on the media. That would go totally against the freedom of speech or the First Amendment as it is called in the US.

The law on this is that you don’t gag the media though the media would be well advised to be careful so that they don’t air conversations which are private in nature, don’t invade the privacy of individuals, don’t defame individuals, otherwise they will be liable to be sued for damages and even for criminal defamation if there has been any defamation of individuals.


This news has just come in and complete details will follow shortly. We can send you an email alert when the details come. Register for your alert here.