The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by TV Today Network challenging a Delhi High Court order upholding the award of ₹5 lakh damages against it for violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of a child sexual abuse victim by airing details capable of revealing her identity.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana rejected the broadcaster's argument that the High Court had erred in holding that the media performs a public function and can therefore be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Senior Advocate appearing for TV Today argued that the High Court had ignored the principles laid down in its own judgment while holding that the broadcaster was performing a "public function", making it amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction.

"Please see the impugned order. The court says that we are performing a public function. The court completely ignores the principles it itself lays down," the counsel submitted, referring to the tests laid down in the judgment.

Justice Bagchi, however, questioned the broadcaster's stand on the issue of maintainability.

"Are you seriously arguing on maintainability? That prayer is out of question," Justice Bagchi remarked.

The senior counsel submitted that there was a larger issue as to whether the press could be said to have discharged a public function for the purpose of entertaining a writ petition.

Justice Bagchi responded that the press contributes to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"What does the press do but contribute to Article 19(1)(a)? When your access to the internet is stopped, you will invoke Article 19(1)(a). Now, when tort is awarded, you say this is not a public function? There is a difference between sovereign and public function," the judge observed.

CJI Surya Kant also questioned why the broadcaster was reluctant to acknowledge the importance of the function performed by the press.

"You are a powerful media player. You could have bona fide said that what you did might be in public interest, but..." the CJI remarked.

Later, the CJI said that the media should, in fact, take pride in performing a public duty of great importance rather than denying it merely as a defence in litigation.

"It is a very settled principle. But as my brother pointed out, you should rather proudly say that you perform a public duty of paramount importance. Why should you feel shy and argue otherwise only as a defence? You should proudly say so," the CJI said.

The counsel contended that treating the press as performing a public function would expose media organisations to the "rigours of Article 226", adding that this could open the floodgates to several writ petitions. He also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court which, according to him, had held that the press does not perform a public function for the purpose of entertaining a writ against it.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the victim had specifically pursued proceedings against TV Today and had expressed her unwillingness to participate in the publication of the incident, but the broadcaster nevertheless went ahead with the telecast.

The CJI then observed that if TV Today wished, the amount of ₹5 lakh could simply be treated as a "small voluntary donation" from its side.

When the senior counsel again submitted that a larger issue was involved and that the decision could lead to the opening of floodgates, the Court disagreed.

"That's rightly answered by the High Court," the Bench said.

When the counsel reiterated that the judgment would open the floodgates to similar proceedings, the Court remarked: "We encourage it."

Case : TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. ABC AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 27299/2026