No person be it media or govt has the right to peep into citizens' private lives without valid reason: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently observed that no person, whether it be the media or governmental agencies, has the right to peep into the private lives of the citizens of the country, without there being a valid reason.

The bench of Justice VG Arun said that the publication of another person's private moments for public viewing is, by itself, an offensive act, even if there is no law preventing such action.

Lamenting the online media which puts out personal information of persons in public to create a sensation, court said, "It is disheartening to note that, at least some online news channels are in the habit of publishing sleaze more than news. A section of the public also devours such sensational and salacious news".

Court opined that "in absence of any mechanism to curb the menace, it is for those channels to introspect and decide whether, by the action of a few, faith in the fourth estate, a powerful pillar of our democracy, is getting eroded".

The court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of the appellants. 

The appellant were accused in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(iii), 354A (iv) of Indian Penal Code, Sections 66E and 67A of Information Technology Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (POA).

The allegations against the appellants, who are media persons working in an online channel named 'Bharath Live', were that they published news items containing disparaging remarks against a woman who was an ex-employee of another online news channel named 'Crime Online', and picturized her as a lady of loose morals.

The woman alleged that the publication was done as she had filed a case against her former employer who had compelled her to videograph her nudity for creating a morphed video of a lady Minister of the State. She alleged that the appellants published the concerned news against her after being provoked by arrest of her former employer. 

The counsel for the appellant argued that none of the offences alleged against the appellants were attracted.

He asserted that in the concerned news items, there were no abusive comments against the complainant woman, and no obscene or inappropriate scenes from her private life were shown. 

Court, however, noted that the concerned news item contained video footage of private moments of the complainant woman. Court further underscored that the appellants had the knowledge that the woman belongs to Scheduled Tribe.

"If so, publication of news and videos containing scenes intended to insult or abuse the 2nd respondent is sufficient to attract the offences under the POA Act," the court held. 

Observing so, court opined that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, against grant of pre-arrest bail, will come into play and accordingly, rejected the appeal. 

Case Title: SUMESH G.S @ SUMESH MARCOPOLO and ANR v. STATE OF KERALA and ANR