Human Rights and Media: A Comparative Study Mohit Singhvi

Human Rights and Media: A Comparative Study
Mohit Singhvi
Introduction
I
t has been rightly said by Alexander Solzhenitsyn “Justice is conscience,
not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of the
Humanity. The name of the justice should not be allowed to be invoked only
for the prolongation of the pursuit of vindictive retaliation. The world is really in the need
of generous magnanimity and understanding charity 1 . Our world is becoming smaller and
ever more interdependent with the rapid growth in population and increasing contact
between people and governments. In this light, it is important to reassess the rights and
responsibilities of individuals, peoples and nations in relation to each other and to the
planet as a whole. Men are born and remain free and equal in Rights. Social distinctions
may be based only on common utility 2 . The truth has to be holding self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that their creator endows them with certain in alienable Rights that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The concept of Human Rights is as old as Human civilizations; the origin of the
contemporary conception of Human Rights can be traced to the period of the Renaissance
and later of the enlightment of which Humanism may be said to be the heart and soul. The
1
Dr. Justice Radhabinod Pal, Judge, High Court of Calcutta (Retd.)
2
Declaration of the Rights of Men and citizen, adopted by the National Assembly of France in 1789
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533
promotion and protection of human rights has been a major preoccupation for the United
Nations since 1945, when the Organization's founding nations resolved that the horrors of
The Second World War should never be allowed to recur. The history of mankind is
marked by the efforts to ensure respect for the dignity of Human beings. The struggle for
the recognition of Human Rights and the struggle against political, social, economic, social
and cultural oppression, against injustice and inequalities, have been an integral part of the
Human societies. 3
Human Rights are generally defined as the Rights, which every Human being is
entitled to enjoy and to have protected. It means the right relating to life, liberty, equality
and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution or embodied in the
international covenants and enforced by the courts in India. 4 Human Rights are
internationally agreed values, standard or rules, regulating the conduct of states towards
their own citizens and non-citizens. Human Rights are “the common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations”. 5 Human Right is a birthright. Everyone born
possesses such inherent Rights, irrespective of the, sex, caste, creed, race and religion. It is
an integral Right of the Human being and also it has been incorporated in almost all the
constitutions across the globe. It is immaterial that you call these Rights as inherent Rights,
Fundamental Rights or by any other name. 6 In the modern world the perception of Human
Rights has assumed universal proportion, and now it is a subject of international
diplomacy, law and institutions.
3
Yasin, Adil-ul and Archana Upadhyay, Human Rights, (New Delhi, 2004), p. VIII
4
Section 2(d), Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
5
Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
6
Syed M.H. Human Rights: The New Era, 2003 pg. 53
Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 2
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533
The ‘World Conference on Human Rights’ held in 1993 marks a crucial stage in
UN Policy in the field of human rights. The Vienna Declaration encouraged the United
Nations to pursue and strengthen its activities to make respect for human rights a priority
objective on the same level as development and democracy and to work for the concurrent
achievement of these three objectives. It is interesting to note that the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights also created in 1947, a sub-commission on Freedom of
Information and of the Press to report to the Commission on Human Rights on what rights,
obligations and practices should constitute the freedom of information. This necessarily
had to be juxtaposed with the human rights
The Universalization of Human Rights is now a political fact. Democracy,
development and the respect for the Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms are
interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Democracy is based on the freely expressed will
of the people to determine their own political, economic, cultural and social systems and
their full participation in all aspects of their lives. In the context of the above, the
promotion and protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms at the national and
international levels should be universal and conducted without conditions attached. The
international community should support the strengthening and promoting of democracy,
development and respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights in the entire world. 7
Justice Patanjali Shastri in one of the earliest cases on the press freedom, namely,
Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras 8 underlined the special role of the press in a
democratic organisation.
7
Article 8, The Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action
8
AIR 1950 SC124
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the Right to Development, as
established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal, unassailable
and an integral part of Fundamental Human Rights. While development facilitates the
enjoyment of all Human Rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the
abridgement of internationally recognized Human Rights 9 .
The radical movements which materialized at the later half of the 18th century
marked the beginning or recognizing the Rights of the man which was considered to be
unassailable and hallowed as the Fundamental foundation of their resist which was
followed by socialist movement in 19th century which ruled out the class system and
propounded the establishment of social and economic equality. The notion of Human
Rights, its universal nature and recognition which is based on the rich heritage of the past
can be seen specifically in the twentieth century as it also experienced the two most
devastating wars in Human history after which this concept was reflected in various
declarations of war aims proclaimed by the countries.
It was the United Nations Charter of 1945, which initiated the recognition of the
notion of Human Rights universally, and it affirmed faith in “Fundamental Human
Rights” and “in the dignity and worth of the Human person”. Article 14 to 17 deals
respectively with protection of the Right to life, protection from arbitrary arrest and
detention, protection from freedom of movement and protection from inhumane
9
Article 10, The Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action

treatment. 10 Article 24 of the charter of the United Nations confers on the Security Council
“primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF

PRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
S
peech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being conveys
his thoughts, sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and
expression is thus a natural right, which a human being acquires on
birth. 11 It is, therefore, a basic right. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek
and receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers" proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The people of
India declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, which they gave unto themselves their
resolve to secure to all the citizens liberty of thought and expression. This resolve is
reflected in Article 19(1) (a) which is one of the Articles found in Part III of the
Constitution, which enumerates the Fundamental Rights.
10
Constitution of Jamaica, Chapter III entitled “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms”
11
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129

Man as rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires
have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other
individuals. The guarantee of each of the above right is, therefore, restricted by the
Constitution in the larger interest of the community. Freedom of Press carries different
meanings for different people. But freedom of press can not be absolute. There must be
boundaries to it and realistic discussion concerns where these boundaries ought to be set. 12
The right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to limitations imposed under
Article 19(2).
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 13
The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous
human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although
implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of
expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is
understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas,
regardless of the medium used.
12
Royal Commission on the Press, final report (1977), pp. 8-9, ‘Dimensions of press freedom’, Indian Press,
Vol. V No. 12, December 1978 pp. 9-12.
13
Sushil Choudhary v. State of Tripura, AIR 1998 Gau. 28

Freedom of expression is a sacred right well accepted over the globe. In Indian
Constitution, it finds place as a guaranteed fundamental right. The Government of India in
tune with Constitutional mandate professes its anxiety to protect and safeguard this
fundamental right. But no right and for that matter right to freedom of expression is
absolute and unfettered in all circumstance but bound by duty to maintain peace and
harmony of the body polity by exercising prudence and restraint in the exercise of right to
freedom of speech. 14 If exercise of this right is likely to inflame passion which in turn may
lead to further violation of human rights and promote more bloodshed of the innocent, the
right to freedom of expression needs circumspection and consequential restraint for greater
good of the society. Furthermore, the media whether print or electronic, should be guided
by the compulsion of self imposed restraint and anxiety to prevent further violation of
human right and loss of more life on account of media reporting. 15
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although
the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches
to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment
theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate
when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is
generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule;
nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
14
Ramji Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620
15
Ram Pyari v. Union if India, AIR 1988 Raj. 124

The abuse of the Human Rights has been recognized as one of the root causes of
contemporary armed conflicts and, at the same time, the protection of Human Rights is
considered as one of essential elements of peace-making and peace-building. 16 It was
tracked by a remarkable step towards shaping the Human Rights i.e. the adoption of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which declared that “everyone is entitled to
all the Rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of
the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a
person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-government or under any other
limitation of sovereignty”. 17 It is imperative that the members of the international
community fulfill their solemn obligation to promote and encourage admiration for Human
Rights and Fundamental freedoms. 18
The most important is the non-derogability of the Right to life, the prohibition on
torture, cruel, inhumane or humiliating treatment and punishment and the Right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion. 19 If the act amounts to inhumane and degrading
treatment, it attracts grave violation of Human Rights. 20 Whereas disregard and contempt
for Human Rights have resulted in barbarous acts, which have outraged the conscience of
mankind and the advent of the world, in which Human beings shall enjoy freedom of
16
Jimmy Carter’s address to Georgia Institute of Technology, February 20, 1979, quoted in AIR 1996
ournal Section at 49.
17
Article 2, UDHR, 1948
18
Principle 2, Proclamation of Tehran, Final Act of the International Conference of Human Rights
19
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24th July.
20
Northern Ireland In the Republic of Ireland v. The United Kingdom

speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspirations for the common people.
Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society as it is an inherent, inalienable right
of the citizens of a democratic country. It is a basic human right enjoyed by all such
citizens, regardless of cultural, religious, ethnic, political formation or other backgrounds
and is the foundation over which other basic human rights are built. Often regarded as an
integral concept in a democratic set up, without free speech no justice is possible and no
resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Thus freedom of speech is significant at
all levels in society. It is also equally important to governments because when criticisms of
a government are freely voiced, the government has an opportunity to respond to the
grievances of the citizens. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted,
rumours, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated through
private conversations and surreptitiously circulated writings. In that context, the
government is in no position to counter such views, because they are not publicly stated. It
is in the government's interest to allow criticisms in the public arena where it can answer
its critics and correct its mistakes if any. Now, due to the surge of Information Technology,
the governments have wider and faster access to electronic media far in excess of past
communication channels.
Though the concept of 'freedom of speech and expression' has been accepted
throughout the globe, human rights activists remark that new threats hang over freedom of
expression in the context of the criticism of any religion. It is felt that freedom of speech

should not be equated with freedom to assail and ridicule another person's belief. It should
not also be equated with the right to instigate hatred and violence. The hurting of religious
sensibilities is something that every group alleges when someone says or writes on a
religious theme, which is not to the liking of the religious group concerned. Those who
claim that their religious freedom has been affected, attempt to agitate against it. As a
consequence, this paves the way for stifling the freedom of speech and expression.
Banning of the book Satanic Verses authored by Salman Rushide in India, and Pradip
Dalvi's play Godse are some cases in point. This freedom has been under attack in a variety
of ways particularly under the guise of censorship.
In India, freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution of India. Article 19(1) (a) says that all citizens shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression. But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions
imposed on the expression of this right for certain purposes under Article 19(2). The First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of speech, is
regarded as the root for the development of this concept in western countries. It can be
observed that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India corresponds to the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says, "congress shall make no law…
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press". 21
According to the provisions in the US Constitution a notable feature is that no
restrictions are mentioned on the freedom of speech. It is reported that since the adoption
of the New Communication Strategy by the General Conference in 1989, United Nations
21
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has contributed to a wider
recognition and public awareness of the importance of freedom of speech and expression
as a fundamental human right. It emphasizes that the governments have a duty to eliminate
barriers to freedom of speech and expression and take steps to ensure an environment in
which free speech and expression flourish. In addition to this, the freedom of speech is
recognized as a human right under Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The International Human Rights Law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions
without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".
Furthermore, freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African
regional human rights law.
A balance may have to be struck between the ability of individuals to be
unrestricted in the free expression of thoughts and ideas, and the need to ensure that
governments are able to efficiently carry out their function of administration, law and
order, and preserving the rights of individuals vis-a-vis each other. Finally it can be
concluded by introspection by remembering the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of the
most prominent of Founders and early political figures and statesmen of the United States -
"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as
public liberty, without freedom of speech".
“In a free society which boasts of democracy, it is the Constitution that should be the
supreme law.”

Media for social justice: The role of legislators and the courts in their efforts to maintain
“rule of law”, usher in “economic and social justice” and administrative apparatus needed
for securing the advantages and benefits to weaker sections have been described at length.
However, the media in the country has been playing a very significant role to the cause of
social justice in a variety of ways. Despite the criticism that the media is not playing its
rightful role and engaging himself in politics of the day to the neglect of portraying the
good work done by all the sectors concerned with the task of promoting social justice, it is
necessary to point out the good work done by the media and its potentialities and
capabilities to play a more vital role in future. 22
The right of a citizen to exhibit films on Doordarshan is similar to the right of a citizen to
publish his views through any other magazines, advertisement hoardings, etc. subject to the
terms and conditions of the owners of the media. 23
In Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V Lokvidayan Sanghatana 24 while
considering a citizens’ right to exhibit films, the Supreme court held as follows: -
“The right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and
conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right f the
freedom of expression guaranteed under article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India, which
can be curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause (2) of article 19 of
the Constitution of India. The right is similar to the right of citizen to publish his views
22
See AIR 1996 Journal Section, at 52.
23
M. Hasan v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 35
24
AIR 1988 SC 1644

through any other media such as newspapers magazines, advertisement hoarding etc.
subject to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media…”
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India 25 this court
after pointing out that communication needs in a democratic society should be met by the
extension as specific right to inform, the right e.g., the right to be informed, the right to
inform, the right to privacy, the right to participate in public communication, the right to
communicate, etc. proceeded to observe as follows:-
“In today’s fine world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.
The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-
formal education possible in large scale particularly in the developing world where
television and other kind of modern communication are not still available for all sections
of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the pubic interest by publishing facts
and opinions without which democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments.
Newspaper being purveyors of news and views have a bearing on public administration,
very often carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other
authorities. The authors of the articles, which are published in the newspapers, have to
be critical of the auction of the government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such
articles tend to become on irritant or even a threat to power.” 26
Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right, which a human being
acquires on birth. It is therefore, a basic human right. “Everyone has the right to freedom
25
AIR 1986 SC 515
26
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171

of opinion and expression; the right includes the freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek and to receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers” proclaims the universal declaration of Human rights,
1948. The people of India declared in the preamble of the constitution, which they gave
unto themselves their resolve to secure all citizens, liberty of thought and expression. This
resolve is reflected in article 19(1) (a) which is one of the Articles found in part III of the
constitution which enumerates the Fundamental Rights. The article reads as under:
“19 (1) All citizens shall have right,--(a) to freedom of speech and expression;”
Article 19(2) Nothing in sub clause (a)of clause (1), shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the state from making any law, insofar as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in
the interest of (the sovereignty and integrity of India), the security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt
of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The words “freedom of speech and expression” must, therefore, be broadly
construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or in writing
or through audiovisual instrumentalities. It therefore, includes the right to propagate one’s
views through the print media or through any other media channel, e.g., the radio and the
television. Every citizen of this free country therefore has the right to air his or her views
through the printing and or the electronic media subject to course to permissible

restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the constitution. 27 The print media, the radio
and the tiny screen play the role of public educators so, vital to the growth of the healthy
democracy. Freedom to air ones views is the lifetime of any democratic institution and
any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy
and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. It cannot be gain said that modern
communication medium advances public interest by informing the public of the events and
developments that have taken place and thereby educating the voters, a role considered
significant for the vibrant functioning of a democracy.28
Therefore in any set up like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular
consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it
falls within the mischief of Article19 (2) of the constitution. It follows that a citizen for
propagation of his or her ideas has a right to publish for circulation his views in
periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media, since it is well known
that these communication channels are a great purveyors of news and views and make
considerable impacts on the minds of the readers and viewers and are known to mould
public opinion on vital issues of national importance. Once it is conceded and it cannot
indeed be disputed, that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of circulation
and propagation of ideas, there can be no doubt that the right extends to the citizen being
permitted to use the media to answer the criticism leveled against the view propagated by
him. Every free citizen has an undoubted right to lie what sentiments he pleases before
the public: to forbid this, except to the extent permitted by Article 19(2), would be an
27
Walter Lipman “Liberty and the news” (1920) at 57, quoted in AIR 1996 Journal Section at 52.
28
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/011002/detFRO02.shtmlf

inroad on his freedom. 29 This freedom must however, be exercised with circumspection
and care must be taken not to trench on the rights of other citizens or to prejudice public
interest. It is a manifest form Article 19(2) that the right conferred by article 19(a) to
subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions in the interest of, amongst others public
order, decency or morality or in relation to defamation or incitement to an offence. It is
therefore, obvious that subject to reasonable restrictions placed under Article 19(2) (a)
citizen has a right to publish, circulate and disseminate his views and any attempt to thwart
or deny the same would offend Article 19(a). 30
A constitutional provision is never static; it is ever evolving and ever changing and
therefore, does not admit of a narrow, pedantic or syllogistic approach. It was the broad
approach adopted by the Court, which enabled them to chart out the contours ever
expanding notions of press freedoms. In Dennis v. United States 31 , Justice Frankfurt,
observed: -
“…The language of the first amendment is to be read not as a barren words found in a
dictionary but as symbols of historic experience illuminated by the presuppositions of
those who employed them.”
It also inter alia recommends that "the media should play a role in peace-building
activities, by making use of anything that may foster such activities, advocating
reconciliation and upholding the values of tolerance and non-violence and the call for
human communities to live together, for example by developing innovative programmes
29
R. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1968) 2 QB 118
30
Kalyan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1183
31
(1950) 341 US 494

that allow peoples affected by armed conflict or terrorism to express themselves, and
which can create a space for dialogue by highlighting mutual respect, collaboration and
reconciliation" and emphasizes that "in order for society to address the issues that create an
environment conducive to terrorism, the media should play a role in facilitating the open
debates and discussions that are fundamental elements of democracy." 32
Trial by Media: The Real Scenario
O
ne of the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to every citizen of
India (and most democratic countries, for that matter) is the right to a
free and fair trial. It is considered to not merely be a modern legal
right, but also an essential principle of natural justice and, thus, has certain connotations
and implications that extend beyond its strict legal character. In short, the right to a free
and fair trial is considered sacrosanct and inviolable in most modern democracies, and is
an essential part of modern democratic justice systems. If this fundamental right is not
ensured to all individuals and entities that are indicted in a court of law, then the integrity
of the court and the legal system itself will have been effectively compromised.
Right to a fair trial is an absolute right of every individual within the territorial
limits of India vides Articles 14 and 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The right to a fair
trial effectively flows from Article 21 of the constitution to be read with Article 14. It must
be noted here that the legal concept of fair trial is not purely for the private benefit for an
32
K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1957 Mys. 592

accused – the publics’ confidence in the integrity of the justice system is crucial, as stated
in Gisborne Herald Co. Ltd. V. Solicitor General. 33 The right to a fair trial is at the heart
of the Indian criminal justice system. It encompasses several other rights including the
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right not to be compelled to be a
witness against oneself, the right to a public trial, the right to legal representation, the right
to speedy trial, the right to be present during trial and examine witnesses, etc. In the case of
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 34 the Supreme Court explained that a “fair
trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and
atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or
against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.”
The basic point of contention here is to what extent the Freedom of the Press (as
implied in the Constitution of India), and the right to a free and fair trial can co-exist in
modern Indian society. Freedom of speech and expression incorporated under
Article 19 (1) (a) has been put under ‘reasonable restriction’ subject to Article 19 (2) and
Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act. Of special note here, however, is the rise of
electronic media in recent times, which has changed the landscape of media coverage
entirely. The rise of sensationalist news reporting on criminal issues is unmistakable, and
its effect on the judicial process, however subtle and insidious, cannot be ignored.
The changing trends of media coverage have their root in the digital age, which has
led to the rise of enormous numbers of television and web-based news service providers,
33
1995 (3) NZLR 563 (CA)
34
(2004) 4 SCC 158

and has bred fierce competition between them. The pressure on each news network to raise
and maintain their TRP ratings and/or sales indexes in relation to their competitors causes
editors and journalists to pursue sensationalist stories (or sensationalist approaches to news
stories) in order to capture and maintain public attention. Thus, journalistic integrity,
neutrality and detachment have all had to take a back-seat to bold, eye-catching headlines
and arresting, engaging and live news coverage that presents the raciest and most appealing
point of view on a crime, without any regard for how such coverage stands to affect court
proceedings and the lives of the parties involved in the case. The media trial has now
essentially moved on to media verdict and media punishment that is no doubt an
illegitimate use of freedom and transgressing the prudent demarcation of legal boundaries.
It is necessary to check prejudicial publicity of the subject matter pending before a court. It
should be legally permissible to pass restraint order on the media.
Nowadays, what we observe is media trial where the media itself effectively does a
separate ‘investigation’ of its own, thus constructing public opinion against the accused
even before the court takes cognizance of the case. By this way, it prejudices the public
and sometimes even judges and as a result the accused person, who should be assumed
innocent until proven guilty under the aegis of the principle of Free Trial, is presumed as a
convicted criminal, endangering his rights and personal liberty. If excessive publicity in
the media about a suspect or an accused before trial prejudices a fair trial or results in
characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime and thus has a
significant chance of colouring the proceedings of the case, it amounts to undue
interference with the “administration of justice”, calling for proceedings for contempt of

court against the media. Unfortunately, rules designed to regulate journalistic conduct are
inadequate to prevent the encroachment of civil rights.
An example of trial by media was the murder case of Aarushi Talwar, in which
extensive media reports laid the blame for the murder first on her father, Dr. Rajesh
Talwar, and then on her mother, Nupur Talwar, despite the fact that there was no
substantial forensic evidence to suggest that either had been involved in the crime. In fact,
these reports were made even before a thorough police investigation into the crime had
commenced. These reckless media reports painted the formerly respectable Dr. Talwar as a
public hate figure, and incited public opinion against him. Later on, an official CBI
forensic report confirmed neither Dr. Talwar nor his wife had anything to do with the
crime, but the damage to their reputation had already been done. This was highly
reminiscent of the murder case of Jon Benet Ramsey, in which the media strongly
suggested that her parents had been responsible for the young girl’s killing, despite the lack
of compelling forensic evidence to support this claim. Years later, a thorough DNA test
vindicated the couple from all blame and dismissed them as viable suspects, but not before
they had been subjected to a keen and humiliating trial by media.
In the criminal justice system, which we have been following, the guilt is to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the law is governed by senses and not by emotions.
While displaying our emotions, the media and the masses forget that it puts tremendous
pressure on the judge presiding over the case. How can one expect a fair and well-reasoned
judgment from a judge who is under such tremendous pressure from all sections of the
society? A person is presumed to be innocent unless he is held guilty by the competent

court, but here the trend on the part of the media is to declare a person guilty right at the
time of arrest. The media’s express duty and function is to report facts or news and raise
public issues for constructive analysis and debate; passing judgments on a judicial matter is
not part of the media’s sphere of activity, but that is effectively what the modern-day
media does on a regular basis.
Perhaps the most objectionable (and certainly the most unfortunate) part of this
recently realised role of media is that the coverage of a sensational crime and its adducing
of ‘evidence’ begins at the nascent stage of the investigation, mostly even before the
person who will eventually preside over the trial even takes cognizance of the offence. On
a related point, it is important to note here that the media is not bound by the traditional
rules of evidence which regulate what material can, and cannot be used to convict an
accused. In fact, the Right to Justice of a victim can often be compromised in other ways as
well, especially in rape and sexual assault cases, in which often, the past sexual history of a
prosecutrix may find its way into newspapers, thus having a possible effect on the outcome
of the case in question. This is an obvious restriction on the person’s right to a free trial,
and is clearly illegal. Even if the accused are acquitted by the court on the grounds of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot resurrect their previous image. Such kind of
exposure provided to them is likely to jeopardize all these cherished rights accompanying
liberty, and their right to personal liberty and a life of dignity stands to be adversely
affected by the social stigma they are forced to bear for the rest of their lives on account of

the exaggerated and occasionally blatantly untruthful reports presented in the media. This
point of view was propounded by Jagannadha Rao. 35
Through media trail, we have started to create pressure on the lawyers even — to
not take up cases of accused, thus forcing these accused to go to trial without any defense.
This is clearly a blatant violation of the accused party’s natural rights, and this violation
occurs only because of the media’s coverage of the matter. Every person has a right to get
himself represented by a lawyer of his choice and put his point before the adjudicating
court and no one has the right to debar him from doing so, or to influence proceedings to
such an extent that it becomes inordinately difficult for the accused to obtain a defence
attorney. For an instance, when eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu
Sharma, the prime accused in the Jessica Lal case 36 , he was subjected to public derision. A
senior editor of the television news channel CNN-IBN described the decision to represent
Sharma as an attempt to “defend the indefensible”. The State had appointed one of the best
lawyers of the country, Gopal Subramaniam, to handle its case, and Mr. Sharma’s case was
handed to a far more inexperienced lawyer. The media severely criticized Mr. Jethmalani
for attempting to take the case and portrayed him as a villain motivated by personal gain.
Regardless of the amount of evidence that had been brought to bear against Mr. Sharma
and the likelihood of his being found guilty, the fact remains that he was entitled to the
attorney of his choice and a free and fair trial by the Constitution – a right that was
effectively denied to him by the media coverage of the case.
35
Fair Trial and Free Press: Law’s Response to Trial by Media
36
Siddhartha Vashisht vs. The State, AIR 2008 SC 2889

The media also tends to create varied problems for witnesses in a case subjected to
excessive media speculation. If the identity of witnesses is published, there is an imminent
danger of the witnesses coming under pressure both from the accused or his associates as
well as from the police. At the earliest possible stage, the witnesses tend to retract their
statements and, understandably, try their best to protect their own privacy and self-interest.
Witness protection is then under threat. Cardozo, one of the greatest Judges of the
American Supreme Court, referring to the “forces which enter into the conclusions of
Judges” observed that “the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not
turn aside in their curse and pass the Judges by” 37 . Therefore, though Lord Denning
stated in the Court of Appeal that Judges will not be influenced by the media publicity38 ,
his view, which was later, rejected in the House of Lords. Thus, it is a commonly accepted
notion that judges can, sub-consciously, be subjected to unnatural pressures from excessive
media speculation about an ongoing case, which is clearly an infringement on the accused
party’s right to a free trial.
To prevent this from happening, there exists in our legal methodology the rule of
monitoring and restricting media reports on matters that are sub judice. The media,
however, tends to strongly resent this sub judice rule and complains that Courts during the
course of a hearing tend to interpret the sub judice rule quite strictly to prohibit any
discussion of the issues before the Court even if they are engaging public attention. In the
opinion of the media, such a restriction could be applied more legitimately to situations
37
Nature of the Judicial Process’, Lecture IV, Adherence to Precedent. The Subconscious Element in the
Judicial Process, 1921, Yale University Press.
38
Attorney General v. BBC : 1981 AC 303 (CA), p. 315)

where a jury of lay people is involved. After the abolition of the jury system, decisions are
now made by professional judges who are trained not to be influenced by happenings
outside the Court there is less of a justification for a strict application of the rule.
The most comprehensive research on the positive and negative aspects of media
trial has been elaborated in 200th report of the Law Commission entitled Trial by Media:
Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 39 ) that has made recommendations to address the damaging effect of
sensationalized news reports on the administration of justice. While the report has yet to be
made public and has not yet been subjected to the inevitable media scrutiny, preliminary
news reports indicate that the Commission has recommended prohibiting publication of
anything that is prejudicial towards the accused — a restriction that shall operate from the
time of arrest.
It also reportedly recommends that the High Court be empowered to direct
postponement of publication or telecast in criminal cases. The report noted that at present,
under Section 3 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act, such publications would be contempt
only if a charge sheet had been filed in a criminal case. The Commission has suggested
that the starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of arrest of an accused and
not from the time of filing of the charge sheet. In the perception of the Commission such
an amendment would prevent the media from prejudging or prejudicing the case. Another
controversial recommendation suggested was to empower the High Court to direct a print
or an electronic media to postpone publication or telecast pertaining to a criminal case and
39
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf

to restrain the media from resorting to such publication or telecast. The 17th Law
Commission has made recommendations to the Centre to enact a law to prevent the media
from reporting anything prejudicial to the rights of the accused in criminal cases from the
time of arrest, during investigation and trial.
Herein lays the crux of the issue, and the fundamental problem that legislators face
in their attempts to pose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the press to protect the
interests of the parties involved in a case and prevent the infringement of their fundamental
rights. The measures proposed by the Law Commission would essentially impose certain
terms of pre-censorship on the media of the country, as it would prevent them from
broadcasting and propagating coverage of certain sub judice matters that the Court
considers to be sensitive in nature. Pre-censoring of media (especially newspapers) is
considered to be expressly illegal in India, with several significant legal precedents like the
case of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express 40 . Thus, it would be exceptionally
difficult to introduce such measures and restrictions on the sphere of activity of the Indian
press, even though such restrictions would, in this particular case, be necessary to protect
the basic human rights of the parties involved in any number of cases that can be
sensationalized by the present-day media. Thus, there is a lengthy and difficult road that
must be tread before the blatant and flagrant infringement of human rights to free and fair
trials by the media can be remedied and prevented.
40
AIR 1989 SC 190

RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND MEDIA
P
rivacy as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is “right of a person and
the person’s property to be free from unwarranted and undesired public
scrutiny and exposure. Privacy as a right has changed by leaps and
bounds in recent times. The theory that an action may lie for the invasion of the right of
privacy or as it has been said, the right to be let alone was propounded in 1890 by two
American lawyers- Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis 41 .
Right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of
Law of Torts, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful
invasion of privacy was recognised. This right has two aspects, which are but two faces of
the same coin:
41
Selected Essays on Torts, p. 122

(1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an
unlawful invasion of privacy; and
(2) the constitutional recognition given to the right of privacy which protects personal
privacy from unlawful governmental invasion. If interference with privacy is of such a
nature as to amount to a recognised tort, resort to that tort action may be taken to prevent
interference. 42
Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) defines Right to
Privacy as—No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence not to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the
right to protection of law against such interference or attack.
Sting Operation vis-à-vis Right to Privacy
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India provides for nothing in sub-clause (a) that
shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents the state
from, making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any
matter which offends decency or morality or which determines the security of, or tends to
overthrow the state.
On the other hand, ‘Freedom of Press’ has been held to be a part of the
Fundamental Right of ‘Freedom of Speech and expression’ guaranteed by article 19(1)(a)
to the citizens of India. It has been held that ‘Freedom of Press’ is necessary for exercise of
42
Halsbury’s Laws of England

fundamental freedom of citizens of ‘speech and expression’, and so ‘Freedom of Press’
cannot be termed as unconstitutional and void. As the Constitution expressly states, this
can only be exercised till it does not harm the decency/morality of a person. The
Constitution of India gives full liberty to press but with definite strings attached, which are
classified and specifically denoted by the ‘reasonable restrictions’ described by Article
19(2) of Part III of the Constitution.
In the case of Sakal Papers, 43 the Supreme Court held that Article 19(2) of the
Constitution permits imposition of reasonable restrictions on the heads specified in Article
19(2) and on no other grounds. It is, therefore, not open for the state to curtail the Freedom
of Speech and Expression for promoting the general welfare of a section or a group of
people unless its action can be justified by the law falling under clause 2 of Article 19. And
moreover it is an entirely valid contention that at a certain point all Sting Operations do
violate Right to Privacy in some degree because during a Sting Operation, in nearly all its
instances in recent history, the person being filmed is not aware of the presence of a hidden
camera. This means that he does not consent to be filmed, without which, in ordinary
course, no one has the right to film anyone. However, it may be argued that a illegal act
being committed by a public servant during his office hours and in abuse of spirit of his
office are not worthy of protection under Right to Privacy law.
Right to Privacy is implicit in Article 21. According to Subba Rao, J., ‘liberty’ in
Article 21 is comprehensive enough to include privacy. His Lordship said that although it
is true that he does not explicitly declare the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right but
43
AIR 1962 SC 305

the right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. It is regarded as a Fundamental Right
but cannot be called absolute. It can be restricted on the basis of compelling public interest.
The court, however, has expressly limited this right to personal intimacies of the family,
marriage, motherhood, procreation and child bearing. On the other side, in the Sting
Operations done by the media in India, only the working of the public servants in their
offices is covered and explored in detail. The official work of the public servant should be
transparent and open to all as it is in the public interest. But according to the court’s
decision, the Right to Privacy does not cover this official work in the purview of its
definition. Thus, Sting Operations were begun by the media with a laudable objective of
exposing corruption in high places.
However, it can be deduced from the mitigating circumstances that one of the basic
reasons to carry out Sting Operation is to increase TRP ratings or to ‘interest the public’
rather than ‘public interest’. Hence the 17th Law Commission in its 200th report has made
recommendations to the centre to enact a law to prevent the media from interfering with
the privacy rights of the individuals.
INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
The Indian Constitution has not yet granted but only reasoned this right through
implication, as an implicit part of the aegis of certain other fundamental rights. The
existing law just affords a principle which if properly invoked may protect the privacy of
the individual and Indian judiciary has been using judicial activism to widen the ambit of
the Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21, where the seeds of the privacy rights may be

found and extending the protection granted by it. In recent times, however, this right has
acquired a constitutional status. This journey began in 1963, when for the first time the
issue regarding Right to Privacy was raised in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 44 .
The Question was whether Right to Privacy might be implied from existing Fundamental
Rights in the Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21. The Majority
opinion was that our Constitution does not in express terms confer any such right on the
citizens. Minority opinion (SUBBA RAO, J.) was in favour of inferring right to privacy
from right to personal liberty under the Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.
This right again came for examination before the Supreme Court of India in Govind
v. State of Madhya Pradesh 45 , and this time Supreme Court took a more elaborate view
and accepted a limited right to privacy as an emanation from Articles 19 (1)(a), 19 (1)(d)
and 21. It was also said that the right is not absolute. So, reasonable restriction may be
imposed on this right. These restrictions must be the same as are provided under the
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19, clause 2.
NEW FACETS OF PRIVACY
'Privacy' has been defined as "the rightful claim of an individual to determine to
which he wishes to share himself with others and control over the time, place and
circumstances to communicate with others". It means the individual's right to control
dissemination of information about him. It is his own personal possession. It is well
44
AIR 1963 SC 1295
45
AIR 197

accepted that one person's right to know and be informed may violate another's right of
privacy. In other words, disclosure of certain facts, events, actions, photographs,
videotapes, in any form of media, print or celluloid, internet would cause embarrassment,
agony emotional stress, to a person of reasonable sensitiveness. 'Right of Privacy' in other
words can be said "to be let alone". What is information to others according to a journalist
could be a personal and sensitive information to an individual in a litigation relating to
matrimonial dispute. The boundary between freedom of press and privacy of individual is
the "Lakshman Rekha" and if the media crosses the line of boundary, the invasion starts.46
Privacy provisions have just worsened due to the recent rage of sting operations. The false
and fabricated sting operations have raised questions on accountability of media 47 . Starting
from 2001 Tehelka exposure, which compelled the defence minister and others to resign,
the present sting operation just exposed the new facets endangering the right to privacy.
Unlike in the West, Indian news organisations have no internal rules and defined code of
ethics governing the undercover investigations. Considering the recent trend of ready-to-
hire stings, the credibility of sting operations delivering evidentiary value has been
questioned, which essentially makes the concept of sting operations self-defeating in
certain cases.
In a recent case, a 40-year-old schoolteacher in Delhi was labelled as a pimp by a
sting operation conducted by a TV news channel. She was beaten up and stripped in public
after the channel telecast a sting operation showing her negotiating a deal with a decoy
customer. Later it was proved that it was a false sting operation that not only defamed the
46
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu: AIR 1995 SC 264

schoolteacher and infringed upon her right to privacy, but also caused public humiliation
and grievous bodily harm to her person.. What is required under these circumstances is
responsible media. Hence it may be said whether there is the crossing of the thin line,
which is between the private interest and public interest is the litmus test for accepting the
credibility of any of the sting operations.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Enacted in the year 2005, the Right to Information Act, 2005 tries to strike a
balance between public interest and private interest. It has led the information from the
public authorities out of the ambit of the right to privacy. It facilitates citizens to secure
access to the information under the control of public authorities, which in a way results in
transparency and accountability. The concept of the democratic ideas being paramount is
maintained.
OTHER ASPECTS OF MEDIA INFRINGEMENT ON PRIVACY
Aside from sting operations, there are also other organised means employed by the
media to obtain information about private persons that can amount to an infringement of an
individual’s right to privacy. Many significant legal precedents for this are found in U.S.
legal history. For instance, in the case of Dietemann 48 , the plaintiff was a plumber who
practiced medicine at home without a license. A Life Magazine reporter, accompanied by a
photographer and working with the local district attorney, posed as a couple to get into his
living room to obtain information for criminal prosecution. They used a hidden tape
48
Dietemann v. Time Inc. (9th Cir. 1971)

recorder and camera. The plumber was arrested and pleaded no contest. However, he sued
for invasion of privacy.
Life's defense was First Amendment right to gather information. A federal district
court, however, awarded $1,000 in damages. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, stating
the reason as use of false identity. The judge also expressly stated as follows:
"The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by
electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office. It does not become a
license simply because the person subjected to the intrusion is reasonably suspected of
committing a crime."
In the case of Stephens’s v West Australian Newspapers Ltd. 49 a similar
conclusion was reached by the High Court of Australia. McHugh J explained:
“The quality of life and freedom of the ordinary individual...are highly dependent
on the exercise of functions and powers vested in public representatives and officials by
a vast legal and bureaucratic apparatus funded by public monies. How, when, why and
where those functions and powers are or are not exercised are matters of real and
legitimate concern to every member of the community, so is the performance of the
public representatives and officials who are invested with them?
49
(1992) 182 CLR 211

In several cases the Supreme Court has held that "where a newspaper publishes
truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed,
if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order." 50
In some extreme cases of media speculation and sensationalized news coverage,
images and video is taken of private persons (particularly celebrity figures and/or people
who might be of public interest) in their private homes or in other private areas. This is
clearly illegal, and is punishable by law as an infringement of the right to privacy.
However, it must be remembered here that even if a news organization arguably violates a
subject’s right to privacy, the subject’s remedy usually will not include the ability to bar
the publication of the picture. 51 Hence, the redressal that the plaintiff can receive is usually
strictly monetary in nature, and he/she cannot usually gain an injunction against the use of
the disagreeable photographic or video graphic material. Thus, regardless of the Court’s
action, the plaintiff’s right to privacy will have been infringed upon by the media’s actions,
without proper compensation.
Another instance of the media’s infringement on the right to privacy in the U.S.
was the controversy over the matter of “reality-based journalism” in the last decade. In
this case, news crews were allowed to accompany law enforcement officials into private
homes while delivering warrants or completing arrests, ostensibly to illustrate to the public
the methods of real-life law enforcement and spread public awareness and education. In
fact, several television shows were designed around the raw footage obtained from such
50
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989)
51
See CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 114 S.Ct. 912 (Blackmun, Circuit Justice 1994)

law enforcement operations. 52 However, several cases 53 were filed before the U.S.
Supreme Court by private persons, alleging that the presence of media crews in their
private homes, taking photos and videos and recording their observations, compromised
the privacy to which they were constitutionally entitled. The Supreme Court ruled
unanimously in favour of the plaintiffs in both cases, stating that though the presence of
the news crews inside the private homes had been authorised by state authorities, it still
amounted to a breach of personal privacy.
The European Court of Human Rights in Jersild v. Denmark 54 held thus:
“Whilst the press must not overstep the bounds set, inter alia, in the interest of 'the
protection of the reputation and rights of others', it is nevertheless incumbent on it to
impart information and ideas of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of
imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were
it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of 'public watchdog.”

52
See the television show, Cops
53
Ayeni v. CBS, Inc. 1994
54
(1995) 19 EHRR 1 (Para 31 at page 25)

CONCLUSION
T
he approval of Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United
Nations on 10th November 2008 marked the culmination of Human
struggle for freedom and liberty. It can be accomplished that Human
Rights are claim, made by virtue of the fact that we are Human beings with an inalienable
Right to Human dignity. The term “Human Rights” are very significant for every
democratic society. Economic, social and cultural Rights are indispensable components of
sustainable expansion and therefore not possible without respect for Human Rights.
No matter what country or continent we come from we are all basically the same
human beings. We have the common human needs and concerns. We all seek happiness
and try to avoid suffering regardless of our race, religion, sex or political status. Human
beings, indeed all-sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace

and in freedom. As free human beings we can use our unique intelligence to try to
understand our world and ourselves. But if we are prevented from using our creative
potential, we are deprived of one of the basic characteristics of a human being. It is very
often the most gifted, dedicated and creative members of our society who become victims
of human rights abuses. Thus the political, social, cultural and economic developments of a
society are obstructed by the violations of human rights. Therefore, the protection of these
rights and freedoms are of immense importance both for the individuals affected and for
the development of the society as a whole. United Nations shall promote “universal
respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” 55
We have to remember that fundamental right of free expression also includes fair
comment and criticism and as has been pointed out by Chief Justice (retd.) P.B.
Gajendragadkar the freedom of expression of opinion “does not mean tolerance of the
expression of opinions with which one agrees but tolerance of the expression of opinions
which one positively dislikes or even abhors.” Scrutiny of public figures by the fourth
estate is a stipulation, which cannot be done away with.
It should not be forgotten that the press has a duty to show that it serves public
interest at large. It is also the essential duty of press to strike that proper balance between
citizens right to privacy and public’s right to information vis-à-vis the role of media i.e. the
press. The press should show their functional accountability. It has to be remembered that
55
Charter of the United Nations, Art. 55(c)

this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all
circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression would
amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it
would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be mis-understood as to be a
press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must
be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the
press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public
order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover
of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes
what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished
by Court of Law. The Editor of a Newspaper or a journal has a greater responsibility to
guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances
have a far greater circulation and impact then the utterances of an individual and by reason
of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. That being so,
certain restrictions are essential even for preservation of the freedom of the press itself.
To quote from the report of Mons Lopez to the Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations:
“If it is true that human progress is impossible without freedom, then it is no less
true that ordinary human progress is impossible without a measure of regulation and
discipline”. It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people
with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate
evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news

item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive
without any false and distorted expression. 56
It is the task of the media to ensure objectivity of commercial decision making by
fearless and honest reporting so that the averment that such decisions are in the greater
good of the consumer or the public is indeed followed in principle and spirit. 57
56
In Re : Harijai Singh and Another In Re : Vijay Kumar 1996 INDLAW SC 2426
57
Petronet LNG Ltd. Indian Petro Corp. & Anr.

Human Rights and Media: A Comparative Study Mohit Singhvi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights and Media: A Comparative Study Mohit Singhvi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights and Media: A Comparative Study

not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of the

among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution or embodied in the

Rights has assumed universal proportion, and now it is a subject of international

diplomacy, law and institutions.

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 2

Commission on Human Rights also created in 1947, a sub-commission on Freedom of

had to be juxtaposed with the human rights

The Universalization of Human Rights is now a political fact. Democracy,

international community should support the strengthening and promoting of democracy,

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal, unassailable

abridgement of internationally recognized Human Rights 9 .

declarations of war aims proclaimed by the countries.

notion of Human Rights universally, and it affirmed faith in “Fundamental Human

detention, protection from freedom of movement and protection from inhumane

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

“primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF

his thoughts, sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and

expression is thus a natural right, which a human being acquires on

Constitution, which enumerates the Fundamental Rights.

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 5

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although

implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of

regardless of the medium used.

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 6

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

Constitution, it finds place as a guaranteed fundamental right. The Government of India in

human right and loss of more life on account of media reporting. 15

nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 7

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

considered as one of essential elements of peace-making and peace-building. 16 It was

the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a

person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-government or under any other

limitation of sovereignty”. 17 It is imperative that the members of the international

Rights and Fundamental freedoms. 18

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

aspirations for the common people.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society as it is an inherent, inalienable right

citizens, regardless of cultural, religious, ethnic, political formation or other backgrounds

resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Thus freedom of speech is significant at

private conversations and surreptitiously circulated writings. In that context, the

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 9

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

of ways particularly under the guise of censorship.

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing freedom of speech, is

abridging the freedom of speech or of the press". 21

According to the provisions in the US Constitution a notable feature is that no

Human Rights And Media: A Comparative Study 10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537533

recognized as a human right under Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

Furthermore, freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African

regional human rights law.

A balance may have to be struck between the ability of individuals to be