Private Media Houses Perform 'Public Function', Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that media organisations, despite being private entities, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as they perform public functions and discharge duties affecting public rights and interests. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 602]

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that it would be unrealistic to hold that the media and those who form an inalienable part thereof, do not perform any public function.

“Inherent, in the public function performed by the media, which would include the appellant, is the public duty to ensure that the rights of the public are not prejudiced or injured by the manner in which such public function is performed. Intrinsically intertwined with the performance of the public function is, therefore, the public duty to ensure due care and attention during its discharge and performance,” the Court said.

The Bench made the observations while dealing with an appeal filed by TV Today Network against a Single Judge ruling arising from allegations that an Aaj Tak telecast had disclosed details capable of revealing the identity of a child victim in a sensitive sexual abuse matter.

The Single judge had held that press and media certainly performs a public function, and also discharges the public duty of dissemination of news, views and information, debates on current issues, and the like.

Agreeing, the division bench said that TV Today is discharging a public function, which involved the public duty to ensure that the public function was discharged without injuring the fundamental rights of the persons involved, and that the reliefs sought in the petition before the single judge were intended to ensure proper and constitutional discharge of such public function.

The Bench noted that the single bench had ruled that the press and media, of which TV Today is an inalienable part, certainly performs a public function, and also discharges the public duty of dissemination of news, views and information, debates on current issues, and the like.

Reiterating the same, the division bench held:

"The impugned judgment was rendered 12 years ago, and the extent of societal penetration, by the media, both electronic as well as the press, has only increased since then, by leaps and bounds. Human affairs, in today's day and age, are often controlled, to the greatest extent, by the fourth estate. We reiterate the observations, by the learned Single Judge, that the media commands immense power of making, moulding, sustaining and even changing public opinion.”

While doing so, the Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. Rudani (1989) wherein it was held that writs can be issued not only against statutory authorities but also against any person or body performing a public duty.

The Bench also referred to the ruling in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) wherein it was held that even if a body is not “State” under Article 12, it may still be amenable under Article 226 if it performs public functions.

Holding the mother's plea maintainable, the Bench also held that it could not believe that the news channel was of the view that it was perfectly permissible for it to broadcast, to the viewing public, the events which transpired with the minor, without her consent, and especially when her mother had expressly declined to interact with the channel's team.

It held that the Norms of Journalistic Conduct as laid down by the Press Council of India in 1996 also applies to TV Today, adding that the said Norms deals with the right to privacy, and proscribed intrusion or invasion, by the Press, of the privacy of an individual, unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest.

“The right to privacy exists. There is no question of the right to privacy having been sacrificed by any act committed by ABC, especially as the right arises out of a duty which vests exclusively in the appellant to ensure that, when ABC had clearly expressed her disinclination to entertain the appellant's visiting crew members, the appellant ought to have stepped back, as the learned Single Judge has correctly held,” the Court said.

“The extent to which a citizen desires to enforce her, or his, right to privacy, is the exclusive prerogative of the citizen, and the citizen's decision in that regard has to be respected. To borrow a famous quote voiced by a well-known thespian from a somewhat recent Hindi film, “No means no”,” it added.

Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. ABC & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 602

Click here to read order