W.P.(C.) No. 12730/2005 Page 3 of 48
It is alleged that the newspaper article dated 04.08.2005 of respondentno. 2 reveals
the age of the petitioner‟s daughter, the locality in which she
resides, the class in which she studies and the occupation of her father. It isalleged that the said article extensively quotes not only the contents of theFIR but also the statement of the police officer concerned with the saidcomplaint.6.
As regards respondent no. 3, it is alleged that the crew members of respondent no. 3 approached the petitioner and her daughter at their homeand attempted to interview them in a deceptive manner against their will. Itis alleged that thereafter, respondent no. 3 aired a programme on itstelevision channel on 07.08.2005, telecasting the said intrusion and givingwide publicity to the incident- by revealing the name, designation, and officeof the accused father; by showing several images of the colony in which thePetitioner and her family were residing along with the
and by airing the recorded voice of the Petitioner refusing entry to crewmembers of respondent no. 3.7.
Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that publicityof such minute details was sufficient for the identity of thevictim/prosecutrix to be revealed. Respondents having done so, withoutobtaining the consent/authorisation from the petitioner, have violated theprovisions of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as the „IPC‟); the „Norms of Journalistic conduct‟
laid down bythe Press Council of India (PCI), governing respondent no. 2 & 3; and aboveall the right of the minor victim of alleged sexual abuse to privacy andconfidentiality enshrined in the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of