1

Sting Operations -Whether violation of Right to

Privacy: An Insight

SUHITA MUKHOPADHYAY
CS, L.L.B, Patent & Trademark Attorney
Partner, Intellex Legaal Sollutions LLP
NCR, New Delhi

Correspondence concerning this Article should be addressed to Suhita Mukhopadhyay, Intellex

Legaal Sollutions LLP, D1502, Angel Jupiter, Indirapuram, NCR-201014.
E-mail: suhitamukhopadhyay@gmail.com
 2

Abstract
This paper critically analyses India's statutory requirements regarding privacy and the
important aspect of violation of Privacy though sting operations. The right to privacy in India
is a peculiar blend of constitutional, customary and common law rights scattered across
various legal fields. As a customary right, it is treated as an easement. As a part of the
constitutional right to life and liberty, it is considered to be an illustration of the prerogative
development of human rights and basic freedoms. A sting operation’s goal is to catch the
corrupt and spy on individuals involved in illegal or anti-national actions. Sting operations
are frequently employed to apprehend corrupt officials, criminal dons, and spies. It is a matter
of debate whether Sting operations also infringe the Right to Privacy by the Supreme court
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution– the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Sting
operations are not mentioned specifically in any of today’s laws. There are also no acts
governing such operations. While there have been some judicial rulings about specific
incidents, no judge has yet laid down guidelines or legislation governing these media acts.
Faced with public outrage over “sting operations” utilizing hidden cameras, the Union
Information and Broadcasting Ministry is exploring a regulatory system to protect
individuals’ privacy as Privacy is what is demanded by and for each and every person in his
or her life. A segment of the media regards “sting operations” as an acceptable means of
revealing the truth, but the Ministry intends to draw a clear line between stories that
constitute an “invasion of privacy” and those that expose wrongdoing or have political
repercussions. This paper seeks to conceptualise the Right to privacy in context of Sting
Operations and focuses on the moot question: Can sting operations, take away this privacy
and make it public.

Key Words:

Sting Operation, Privacy Rights, Violation of Privacy, Constitution of India

 3

OBJECTIVE
The Objectives of this Paper are:

• To analyse and define the purpose of sting operations.

• To study the provisions of Law in context with the sting operations in India.
• To examine the challenges faced by the Sting operations in India and the Scope the
Sting Operations have
• To study the admissibility of evidence from sting operations in the courts.
• To understand the question of the legality of sting operations in India.
• To examine the Right of Privacy in Sting operations

Sting Operations are undertook with a view to look into the working of the Government or to
see whether the acts of any individual is against the public order. The media plays an
important role in a democratic society. It acts as the fourth institute outside the Government .
Sting operations are methods of uncovering information. Sting operations generally serve two
purposes: (1) investigation, and (2) reduction/prevention of specific crimes

The majority of sting operations fall under the investigative category. The aim may be to
penetrate a criminal gang, collect evidence, and identify and arrest offenders. Police will
conduct a sting essentially to uncover a suspected extensive or complex fraud involving many
people, usually those who hold offices of trust in a community or government organization.

Sting operations that target specific crimes with the aim of reducing their incidence are
usually conducted for a predetermined time, such as speed traps or random Breathalyzer stops
during a holiday period. Thus, they are cheaper to implement and are more common. The
police may use them in conjunction with other responses aimed at reducing recurring or
persistent crime problems such as prostitution, illegal gambling, drunken driving, speeding,
sale of alcohol or cigarettes to minors, street drug dealing, and rashes of car theft.

There are two methods of Sting operation: Positive Sting Operation & Negative Sting
Operation. Positive sting operations are those which are conducted for the benefit of society
to render clear those incidents which should be put to the public domain because they have
been proven to be harmful to the needs of the community. They are conducted in view of the
sincere concern for the general population and designed to infiltrate the context of the
government’s work process.
 4

Negative sting operations are in contravention of the personal liberties of the individual. They
do not function for the benefit of society and are injurious to the person who has been caught
in the camera. They do not benefit the general public, but is a sensationalized attempt to
create an audience in the age of ‘breaking news’ by encroaching on the dignity or sanctity of
a person or an entity

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted is a doctrinal form of research methodology. This
research paper focuses predominantly on laws, statutes, and Judicial Precedents in context of
Sting Operations and whether they are in Violation of Right to privacy in India.
 5

INTRODUCTION

“Sting” originates from the American usage, referring to a police undercover operation to
catch a person committing a crime by means of deception. The refined expression for the
sting is Investigative journalism or Undercover Journalism. Democratic participation permits
investigative journalism. Hence Sting operations have become the norm in today’s
culture. Satellite, remote control cameras, and high fidelity sound equipment capable of
picking up talks in a room from outside can now be used to spy on a person. With the
introduction of miniaturized audio and video technologies, particularly pinhole camera
technology, it is now possible to secretly record a video/audio recording of a discussion and
the actions of others. There are numerous methods for concealing a camera inside a suitcase,
a pager, a cigarette lighter, a cellular telephone, a fountain pen, a smoke detector, or the nose
frame of sunglasses or other eyewear, etc . Sting operations carried out by ostensibly private
spying agencies are flagrant invasions of an individual’s privacy. Thus Sting Operation is an
information-gathering exercise; it looks for facts that are not easy to obtain by simple
requests and searches, or those that are actively being concealed, suppressed or distorted. But
the question is, can Sting Operation, known as ‘Dansh Patrakarita’ in Hindi, can take away
this privacy and make it public. Where such investigative work involves the use of covert
methods, it raises issues that tend to further blur the line between law and ethics. Is deception
legitimate when the aim is to tell the truth? Is any method justifiable no matter the working
conditions and the difficulties in getting information? Can television reporters use hidden
cameras to get a story? Can journalists use false identities to gain access to information? The
critical question that surfaces is to what extent can the media go and to what extent should a
person be informed? This is the most burning issue in the entire world today. In the United
States, the only exceptions are law enforcement agencies and police-licensed private
detectives, who are permitted to use them in limited cases under very restricted settings. They
can be used for evidence collection by licensed private investigators, but not in sting
operations.
 6

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Devanarayanan, Sting Operations through Journalism in India: A Legal

Perspective, Lawbhoomi Publications
The author describes that Journalism is often referred to as the voice of the voiceless.
It brings into light everything that occurs in the darkness of nights and is hidden from
the eyes of the citizens. Journalism has become a mode of spreading awareness and
demanding justice against what is wrong. It has continued through its reports whether
print or visual kept a keen eye on everything that goes on in society. One of the
remarkable outcomes of Journalism is Sting Operations which revolves around social
and is often termed to be the new age journalism. Print media refers to Sting
operations as 'Expose'.

2. Abhijit Roy, Legal Analysis on the Validity of Sting Operations in India,

Burnished Law Journal
The author describes a Sting Operation as a secret operation formulated in order to
prevent people committing a crime through deception. He has stated that Sting
Operation is an information gathering exercise which looks for facts that are not easy
to obtain by simple requests and searches, or those that are actively being concealed,
suppressed, or distorted. The Article analyses the answers to some questions : Do we
need Sting Operations as a result of all of this? Around the same time, as clandestine
tactics are used in forensic work, it poses questions that further blur the distinction
between law and ethics. Is it permissible to deceive when the aim is to say the truth?
Is any approach justifiable, regardless of the working conditions or the difficulty in
obtaining data? Is it possible for news reporters to obtain a story using concealed
cameras? Is it possible for journalists to use fictitious identities to gain access to
information? The crucial question that arises is how far should the media go and how
much information can an individual have?

3. Ravi M. Khanna Kumar, Sting journalism, its perils and promises,

Impactonnet.com/ Journals
The author states that the journalists must understand that sting journalism seems to
be an easy way, however it can make the media lose its credibility and legitimacy,
further the media are being blamed for indulging in 'paid news'. Therefore, problems
 7

are inbuilt in the very nature of sting operations especially in India. The News Editors
also do not have any way to verify the data collected from the reporters, hence they
depend on the honesty and credentials of the reporters directly which sometimes
might be risky. It also analyses whether sting operations result in destruction of
privacy of citizens.

3. Shoma A. Chatterji, Sting Operations and Ethics of Journalism, Media

Journal Publications The author elaborates on sting operations that sometimes it is
dramatized for manipulation of truth which becomes a delicate issue. It is strongly
dependent on the media, to what extent the sting operations can be executed. If the
media believes in keeping away such operations, then some essential truths might be
unexposed to the public which could be the need off the hour. On the other side, if
media members execute sting operations, it might lead to unnecessary controversy,
questions raised by the society, suits filed by different parties and primarily the
authenticity of the operation.
 8

DATA AND DISCUSSION

Laws Governing Sting Operations in India

There are no acts governing Sting operations. While there have been some judicial rulings
about specific incidents, no judge has yet laid down guidelines or legislation governing these
media acts. The 17th Law Commission in its 200th report had made recommendations to the
centre to enact a law to prevent the media from interfering with the privacy rights of the
individuals. The Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (1994) is the only legislation in India
which talks about sting or decoy operations in medical facilities which might be suspected of
illegal sex determination. Sting operations undertaken under this act are legitimate and
regulated. In 2007, for example, the Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Bhardwaj Media
Pvt Ltd v. State accepted the legality of a recording from a sting operation that captured
Members of Parliament taking bribes, in wider public interest. When it came to wiretaps,
however, the apex court held that wiretaps are “significant violation of the privacy of a
person.” Still, the Court laid down comprehensive directions that must be followed if the

government intends to use wiretaps, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India.

However an individual can present before the courts under different regulations to secure his
or her rights and independence. For example, wire trapping, which is used as part of a string
procedure, is governed by the Telegraph Act of 1885. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties
vs. Union of India(1997), the Supreme court ruled that wiretaps are a “significant violation
of the privacy of a person.” The Apex court has laid out directions for the government’s
wiretapping, which specify who can tap phones and under what circumstances. Only the
Union Home Secretary or his equivalent in the state can send a tap order, although it has been
adequately shown that the knowledge could not be obtained through some other process.
Other than common law, the Supreme court has also acknowledged its constitutional origin.
Therefore, in the first instance, a private claim for damages can lead to an unreasonable
breach of privacy under the Torts act. These sting operations also infringe the Right to
Privacy by the Supreme court under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution– the Right to Life
and Personal Liberty.
 9

Indian legislation on the evidentiary significance of sting operation is still in a place of swirl.
The work of law enforcement departments, themselves have not been accepted as full
concepts of Detection of criminality and evidence of illegal conduct. Such operations by The
compliance authorities are yet to be evaluated and assessed in India and the formal
recognition of these by our judicial framework is not yet in force. Lately, the courts have
viewed the evidence obtained through sting operations with more caution as they tend to
invade into the privacy of the aggrieved person. Generally, the evidence is disregarded when
it is obtained by influencing the person in committing a crime.
Conversely, we may keep in mind that under the Indian Evidence Act, evidence illegally
secured is admissible in court if it is 'relevant' to the case and the admission of such evidence
has not been barred by the Constitution or any other law. The Supreme Court, as far back as
1973, in the case of RM Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, upheld the admissibility of a tape
recording of a conversation that took place on the telephone. Indeed, a careful reading of the
Indian Evidence Act reveals that there is no provision that confers power on the court to
exclude evidence that is illegally or improperly secured.

In the United States of America and other similar Western countries, an “exclusionary rule”
applies: when authorities secure evidence of a crime by illegal means, the evidence is usually
inadmissible in court. This rule, an extension of the country’s constitutional bar on
“unreasonable searches and seizures”, deters the police from infringing citizens’
constitutional rights when conducting criminal investigations.

Indian courts are yet to find sympathy with this view. Evidence is evidence, whatever be the
procedure by which it is obtained. The words of Justice Crompton, an English Judge of the
Queen’s Bench, in R v. Leathem thus continue to echo through India’s jurisprudence, “it
matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence”.

While there is no clear legislation on the validity or otherwise of a sting operation, the High
court of Delhi, in Aniruddha Bahal vs. State, held stinging on the basis that it was
necessary to achieve the ideals of freedom struggle, a valued desire enshrined in Article
51A(b) of the Indian constitution. The High Court stated that the right to sting was, as it were,
an essential component of freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of the
pursuit of a corruption-free society. However, the opinion of the High Court is not
unanimously held by the other courts. The much-awaited directives of the Press Council on
sting operations are yet to be seen.
 10

Sting Operations: Legal Validity in India

Sting Operations do not have legal validity unless Courts deem so and the legality varies
from case to case. Hence none of the Indian courts have laid down prescribed regulations for
admissibility of sting operations as evidence in a court of law. Some of them consider it as
valid evidence while others have rejected it as evidence and mark it as an infringement of the
right to privacy and possible incitement of crime.

Some Judicial Precedents: In the matter of Aniruddha Bahal & Another v. State (2010),
two journalists Aniruddha Bahal and Suhasini Raj conducted a sting operation against a few
members of parliament where it was shown that they took money as bribes to ask questions in
the parliament. This happened in 2005 and the whole nation watched something which was
already public knowledge but now had documentary proof to back it up. The journalists were,
however, made the prime accused in the case instead of making them a witness. They
claimed it was wrong as they were merely doing their duty as a well-informed citizen of the
nation by exposing such unrestrained corruption. The central issue before the case was
whether someone can offer bribes in this manner to trap and expose a public officer. The
court held that under the fundamental duties of a citizen, Article 51A(b) makes it necessary to
uphold the ideas of a freedom struggle to cherish our free nation, therefore, the sting
operation conducted in this case was necessary and valid and the right to conduct sting
operations comes under the right to free speech.

In the case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High (2009) the court was requested to
frame guidelines for sting operations. In this case a young man from an influential family,
driving at a reckless speed ran over six people including three policemen in an inebriated
state. The lawyers of the accused were seen meeting the prime witness of the case and
influencing him not to testify. The Delhi High court declared them guilty and the Supreme
Court upheld the decision and refused to put down guidelines for the media conducting sting
operations, which was requested in the case. It said by putting down guidelines would tamper
with the autonomy of the media which is against the media’s right to free press. A few
isolated incidents of misuse do not justify a complete ban on this manner of investigative
journalism.
 11

In the Godhra Case (2002) the journalists working in Tehelka news channel recorded a
video of two star witnesses, who claimed that they were paid to make such statements in the
court. This was presented in the sessions court. Judgment: The sessions court rejected to
consider it as evidence because it was a sting operation carried out without the authority.

It was well discussed by the Supreme court in the case of R. Rajagopal and Another vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, “A person has the right to preserve the privacy of his or her own
family, his or her spouse, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and literacy, among other
issues. Nobody can ever publish something on the above-mentioned issues without his or her
permission – whether honest or otherwise and whether effusive or critical. If he did so, he
would infringe the right to privacy of the individual involved and be responsible for damages
in the case of a lawsuit. Nevertheless, the situation could be different if an individual
willingly engages in controversy or willingly invites or causes a dispute.

Scope and Limitations of Sting Operations

Scope
A sting operation’s goal is to catch the corrupt and spy on individuals involved in illegal or
anti-national actions. The Indian Courts have in some cases opined that it is the fundamental
duty of an ordinary citizen under Article 51A(b), 51A(h) & 51A(j) to expose such practices
prevailing in the system and thus for this purpose any such act or operation conducted, with
the intention of doing public good is justified. The utility of conducting sting operations (as
has been described in the judgments is to expose any practice of public officials (not only
corruption), related to his official duty, which are against public interest and which if exposed
will do larger public good. In all such cases a public official cannot make claim for his right
to privacy. Sting Operations thus bring to light invaluable evidence that can help the judiciary
in deciding with a fair degree of certainty and swiftness. Such Sting Operations are an aid to
collecting evidence and as a social deterrent, a sting operation has scope if conducted with
restraint and accountability. Sting Operations facilitate investigation and increase arrests.
They improve collaboration between Police and Prosecutors. They Provide an Impressive
Conviction Record. They Often Require Partnering with Community and Business
Organizations.
 12

Limitations

• Sting operations have now become the order of the day. The carrying out of a sting
operation may be an expression of the right to free press but it caries with it an
indomitable duty to respect the privacy of others. We all know that with great power
comes great responsibility, therefore the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) is correlative
with the duty not to violate any law. Every institution is liable to be abused, and every
liberty, if left unbridled, may lead to disorder and anarchy. Television channels in a
bid to increase their Trade Related Practices (TRP’s) ratings are resorting to
sensationalized journalism. Employing sting operations for political vendetta is
another pertinent issue. It is not unusual to employ reporters or others to conduct
stings for destroying the political career of any particular individual.
• The ethical deficit of sting operations their detractors most often put forward is that
their use of deception is simply another form of lying, and lying is morally wrong,
period. And is it ethically worse if the deceiver holds a government office?
• The question of invasion of privacy will always be under discussion without any law
in place regulating sting operation. Though one can initiate a private action for
damages for an unlawful invasion of privacy under torts, it has to be accepted that this
phenomenon is a serious threat to privacy.

• Sting Operations are expensive. The popular—and more elaborate—stings require

expensive props (storefronts, money up-front to make illegal purchases or pay
informers, decoy cars, video cameras, eavesdropping equipment, and so on). Often
police can obtain these by approaching businesses affected by the crime to help out.
But there is also the greater financial cost of staff time—undercover work required in
complex stings is very time-demanding and may take months or even years. Finally,
there is considerable cost in time required to train officers in how to carry out a
successful sting operation.

• All sting operations do not actually speed up the judicial process or helps in
unearthing the real truth and aid in quicker conviction. A classic example is the
Narada Sting Operation Case which happened 6 years ago. The probe by CBI, ED,
and the Parliamentary Ethics Committee is still on and several PILs have also been
lodged. But even after so many years, we are yet to see the case come to its logical
conclusion.
 13

Violation of Right to Privacy

Privacy is an essential ingredient to the right to public liberty. The right to privacy is an
intriguing part of the right to life and public liberty. Various techniques used by the media to
extract information is against the right to privacy. Wiretapping, telephone tapping are
considered as tools which are a gross violation of the right to privacy.

In R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that a citizen has the right
to safeguard the privacy of his family, marriage, education, and other matters. No one can
publish anything without his consent, no one can publish anything without his consent.

A sting operation is a clear intrusion of individual privacy.

In the Uma Khurana case, the Hon’ble Court held that incidents of false and fabricated sting
operations directly infringed the right to privacy because of having a desire to earn a higher
TRP rating that should not occur.

The Labour liberation front vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the court claimed that there is a
gross misuse of technological advancement and unhealthy environment leading to an
intrusion of privacy of a competition. It becomes the responsibility of the government to
protect the privacy of the citizens therefore more stringent laws should be made in this issue
to protect the essential right of privacy.

International Provision of the Right to Privacy

• Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: It mentions that no person

shall be subjected to interfere with another person’s privacy, family home
correspondence, or attack upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has protection
under the law against such interference.

• Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: It imposes responsibility on

the government to protect individuals from unlawful interference with privacy, home,
or corresponding unlawful attack on honour and reputation.

• Article 14 international provision for the protection of migrant workers and members
and family: No migrant workers or their families shall be subjected to unlawful
 14

interference on their right to privacy. Each of them shall have protection from
unlawful attacks.

International comparison of Sting Operation

• United States of America: In the United States sting operation is legal. Entrapment is not
considered legal in the United States where a person is induced to commit a crime.
• United Kingdom: In the UK sting operation is considered to be a legal practice.
• Canada: It is legal for the media to extract information by the method of the sting
operation.
• Sweden: It has a restrictive approach and has denied carrying out of the process of a sting
operation to collect information.
• France: It has a very similar approach as that of Sweden and has denied the right to the
press to carry out sting operations.

ANALYSIS

Sting Operation vis-à-vis Right to Privacy

The media plays an important role in a democratic society. ‘Freedom of the Press,’ on the
other hand, has been recognized as a component of the fundamental right of ‘Freedom of
Expression and Speech’, granted to Indian citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
Moreover, Right to Privacy flows from Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed in
article 21 of the Constitution of India. Both theses come under Part III of the Constitution, i.e.
the Fundamental Rights. So there is a clash in two major Fundamental Rights guaranteed by
the Constitution of India.The Constitution of India gives full liberty to press but with stings
attached and has certain restrictions. On 18th June, 1951 the Article 19(2) of the Constitution
was Amended by adding “reasonable” to restrictions. The restriction must be reasonable. In
other words, it must not be excessive or misappropriate. The procedure and the manner of
imposition of the restriction also must be just, fair and reasonable. Freedom of speech
includes freedom to communicate, advertise, publish or propagate ideas and the
dissemination of information. Furthermore Art. 19(1) also incorporates within itself right to
receive information about any event, happening or incident etc. The heart of journalism has to
be public interest and Sting operations, serve public interest.
 15

There have been various instances in the past where sting operation was used as valid
evidence. In the State of UP vs Raj Narain the court held that people of the country have the
right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way and by public
functionaries. Therefore, the media possess the power to impart information to the society for
their interest being an important role player in the democratic society.

In a major decision in the matter of Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India
on 25 September, 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows
for the imposition of reasonable limits only on the grounds listed in Article 19(2). As a result,
unless the action can be justified by a statute under Article 19 clause 2, the state cannot
restrict the freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, it is vital to note that all sting
operations violate the Right to Privacy to some extent because, in nearly all cases, the
individual being videotaped is unaware of the presence of a hidden camera during a sting
operation, and has the right to film anyone. However, it may be argued that an illegal act
committed by a public servant during his office hours and in abuse of the spirit of his office is
not worthy of protection under the Right to Privacy. Besides, what a public servant does
while discharging his duty is in the public domain. In such cases, public interest does seem to
weigh heavier compared to Right to Privacy.

Sting Operations are generally carried out to trap the corrupt, the underworld dons and spies.
They are also undertaken to establish adultery. Sting Operation can also be useful in the arrest
of terrorists and anti-national elements. The spy camera of media caught 11 M.L.A.s ccepting
bribe for asking question in the parliament. When the media gets all the evidence against the
corrupt and the wrongdoer and their aim is public interest, why do media not file a case in
court and submit these as proof? This will lead to punishing of these wrongdoers, which is in
public interest. Or, even after getting such evidences, why no report is given to public
authorities and make them take some actions? It is a way of helping law, as media is the
fourth estate of governance. But, on the other hand, such cases cannot be filed in courts with
these tapes, or audio or video recording as evidence or proof because courts do not consider
theses as credible evidence and proof. Moreover, as the Government Machinery is not
functioning properly, that is why such instances are increasing and so what is the point taking
it to public authorities. Apart from this, when all this is exposed by media, the general crowd
gets aware of the illegal business going on in the so called “ Government Machinery”. The
news Broadcasters Association (NBA) justified Sting Operation as “illegitimate journalistic
too las they take place in public interest where public money is involved. Sting Operations
 16

are carried out in hospitals which bring out the problems of paucity of doctors in hospitals,
absence of medicines and medication.

Right to Privacy is implicit to 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 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 limited 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. The official work of the public
servant should be transparent and open to all as it is in the public interest. But the court’s
decision the Right to Privacy does not cover this official work into the purview of its
definition. Sting Operation began with a laudable objective of exposing corruption in high
places and degenerated into cheap entertainment. This growing media presence and relevance
cannot overstate the importance of responsible and competent reporting. No right to freedom
in civil society, no matter how valuable, can be viewed as unlimited, unfettered, or
unqualified. As with the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, media freedom must
be utilized within reasonable boundaries. With immense power comes enormous
responsibility. The right referred to in paragraph (a) of Article 19(1) is inextricably linked to
the need not to violate any statute. It is often felt 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.

Today, the media is substantially infringing on the “Right to Privacy” by over investigating
the product of excessive marketing and violating the bounds of the person’s rights. Another
ruling from the Court, which touched on this issue of the violation of people’s privacy rights,
was contained in the High Court’s judgment in PN Swammy Labor Liberation Front v. the
Station House Officer(1997). The Court stated: “After a case involving important individuals
or institutions, the press acts and does nothing to be done by the Public Prosecutor or the
Courts.” It has recently reached alarming dimensions in terms of interfering with people’s
privacy. Great abuse of technological advancements and low competition in reporters’
industries has caused standards or commitment to a noble profession to vanish. Freedom of
 17

expression is grossly undermined, which is the basis of journalism. It should be remembered

that rights and freedoms can be effectively exercised only in those who are excluded.”

In Time v. Hill the U.S. Supreme Court said: The constitutional guarantee of freedom of
speech to press is not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all the people.
The same principle was followed by Mathew, J. in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of
India.

CONCLUSION

The aforesaid deliberation therefore indicates that though freedom of the press is an
important cornerstone of democracy, and though the press provides information to the
general public and also influences the public to form an opinion on an issue, if sting operation
is really needed, it should be covered by standard operating procedures.

There are various Restrictions on freedom of press apart from Constitutional

Provisions

• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code: According to this section if any person by
either word spoken, gesture, visual representation published with an intent to
defame would be liable for punishment.

• Section 327 of the code of criminal procedure: The proceeding happens in the
open court where the general public has access to it. Provided that if the judge
feels that the person should be given in the entry shall be removed from the room.

• Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act: It mentions that proceedings shall be held a
camera and cannot be published without the prior permission of the court.

• Section 376 D, 376A, 376A of the Indian Penal Code: Inquiry and trial of rape
should be conducted in camera.

Either the Supreme Court should come out with clear guidelines or the State should frame
suitable legislation in this regard. One cannot expect that every news channel or media house
would be responsible in conducting sting operations and would respect the privacy and
 18

freedom of people, more so in the present time when the race for ‘breaking news’ has become
a part of journalism.

Though freedom of speech and expression covers freedom of the press, it is not an absolute
right. There are restrictions on this right as well. It is necessary for the Information and
Broadcasting ministry to impose strict guidelines and stricter punishment on those operations
which are against the rights of other individuals. It is also equally important that sting
operations should not be considered as an illegal weapon and should be carried out respecting
the rights of the other individual.

News Broadcasting Association’s Code of ethics and broadcasting standards set certain
guidelines for conducting sting operations. Some of the important guidelines are listed
below.

• A sting operation cannot be conducted without the permission of the head of the
editorial team and the person concerned of that news channel.

• A sting operation should be done for the public interest.

• During the sting operation, it is not appreciated to induce a person to commit a

wrongful act.

• The recordings of the sting operation should not be tampered or manipulated.

• If the sting operation is proved to be fabricated then all concerned would be liable
for their actions.

• Sting operation can only be relied on and there are no other effective means to
collect information.

• According to Section 6 and Section 5 of the cable and broadcasting network rules,
1994, a sting operation can only be telecasted if there is any prima facie evidence
to show the culpability of the wrong-doer.

• Concurrent and contemporaneous recording in writing of various stages of sting

operation should be made and be preserved for 90 days or any other period
prescribed.
 19

Guidelines or legislation, if framed, should address the following specific areas:

• The individual privacy and freedom of the individual. should be addressed by every
sting operation

• The motive of Pubilc Service should be the focus of the Sting Operations and there
should be elaborate mechanisms to ensure the same.

• Strict penal provisions should be there for punishing individuals and agencies that
conduct sting operations with political and ulterior motives or for the purpose of
increasing viewership of any channel or readership of a newspaper.

• Similarly, penal provisions should also be there if it is found out that a sting operation
has been conducted with the sole purpose of tarnishing the image and reputation of an
individual.

• All aspects of sting operations should be controlled by a Regulatory body within the
media fraternity as any outside regulation would amount to the interference of
freedom of the press, and it is desirable that either the Press Council of India or any
other body be entrusted with this responsibility.

• Information collected from sting operations should be made admissible in court but
only if it is found that the said information is not concocted and not gathered for an
ulterior motive.

The current scenario shows that both legislature and judiciary is silent on the subject. Where
there is an urgent need of a law or any guidelines from the lawmakers of our country, they are
standing as a mute spectator. The citizens of the country are unaware as to how exactly and
in what circumstances they should exercise their freedom of speech and expression in this
form. Therefore it is urged that the matter should be taken up in manner so that both right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) and right to privacy under Article
21 of the Constitution of India are addressed in a balanced manner.

******
 20

Reference:

1) http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/webj/charu_article.pdf
2) https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/10729-right-privacy-verdict-unlikely-
impact-sting-operations
3) https://blog.ipleaders.in/do-sting-operations-violate-right-to-privacy-an-insight/
4) Admissibility of sting operation as evidence in India:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/admissibility-sting-operation-evidence-
india/#The_judicial_perspective_vis-a-vis_Sting_Operations_in_India

5) Sting Operations-Scope and Limitations:

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/477/Sting-Operation:-Scope-&-
Limitations.html
6) Sting Operations; To be or not to be in India
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l166-Sting-Operation.html#:

7) Sting operation not a legal method of law enforcement: Supreme Court

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sting-operation-not-
a-legalmethod-of-law-enforcement-supreme-
court/articleshow/34167419.cms?from=mdr