The
Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 16 February 2016.
When the
person is public official, the matter is part of public record and his conduct
is concerning discharge of his official duty, he cannot invoke privacy. This is the crux of the issue and fine
difference between the private life and public activity, especially when public
official is involved in unreasonable private conduct
Vibrant
media’s aggressive coverage of private lives of public figures brought the
‘right to privacy’ into the limelight. The same question assumed significance
as Right to Information is statutorily provided. Though it appears RTI is
restricted by the right of privacy, in fact, the RTI Act has imposed five
restrictions on right to privacy.
Media’s
freedom and people’s right to know
On the
privacy issue, the Press Complaints Commission of UK (PCC) advised the media:
"Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to
demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or
journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the
public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at the time."
Media has a
duty to inform people about the events going on around the world, as a fodder
for thinking and deciding. Society has a right to be informed. Sometimes this
right comes in conflict with the individual’s right to privacy. Public interest needs to be protected in
knowing current affairs without compromising the right of the individual to his
autonomy.
A journalist
has a duty to report the kidnap or murder of a child, though it enhances the
grief of the parents. However, it is not justified to ask parents questions
while they are grieving, with mike inserted in mouth and camera focused on
their wailing. Justification of public interest ends, when reporter goes beyond
‘news’ and starts probing into ‘private’ life.
While writing
about the public persons, who are in public positions like politicians, group
leaders, clergymen and all those people whose personalities and private
morality are essential parts of their work, thin line between public and
private activity of such person need to be understood.
Right to
report public lives
The right to
report about public person gives certain leverage to further probe into private
aspects, to very limited extent. Where a person's character is an essential
part of performing their public role, the public has the right to know any
facts which reveal special aspects of their character, especially faults.
For instance:
If a public personality is found in his private life found to have lied in a
serious way, the public should be made aware that he could be lying in his
work, too. Where public figures are responsible for setting a moral tone in
society, any private immorality should be exposed as hypocrisy, something like
the society should be aware that a leading campaigner against child abuse
regularly beats his own children.
A
media-privacy lesson provided an interesting example: If any misdeeds in
private could be used to blackmail that person into compromising their public
trust, the public has the right to know about it. In 1963, newspapers revealed
that the British Defence Minister John Profumo had been sleeping with a woman
who was also having a sexual relationship with the military attaché at the
Soviet embassy in London.
Although it
was never suggested that the woman had passed British secrets from Profumo to
her Soviet lover, Profumo was forced to resign in disgrace, largely because
secrets could have been passed. To make matters worse, Profumo, a married man,
had lied to the British Parliament about his affair. High office carries a heavy
burden as well as great rewards.
Because one
happens to public figure, his entire life need not be exposed all through; he
still has right to some privacy, where it can be shown that there is no overlap
with the performance of their public role. They have the right to relax away
from the eyes of the public.
For example,
it might be unwise for a cabinet minister to play cards for money if gambling
is not approved of in your society. However, if he plays with a group of
friends within the privacy of his own home, perhaps he is entitled to some
relaxation. A legislator aggressively participating in betting during
Sankranthi day becomes a relevant news item in public interest, though the
legislators could feel his privacy was invaded.
Constitutional
basis
Constitution
does not expressly recognise the right to privacy. Though it is regarded as
part of right to life under Article 21, it was basically to secure a citizen
from unauthorised searches and invasions into a private home. (Unni Krishnan
and Kharak Singh 1964 cases) It means ‘right to be let alone’ or 'to safeguard
the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood,
child-bearing and education among other matters'. (Gobind v MP 1975)
Supreme Court
introduced a very significant exception to the rule of privacy, “if a person
voluntarily thrusts himself into a controversy or any of these matters becomes
part of public records or relates to an action of a public official concerning
the discharge of his official duty’. (Rajagopal v State of T.N1995)
When the
person is public official, the matter is part of public record and his conduct
is concerning discharge of his official duty, he cannot invoke privacy. This is the crux of the issue and fine
difference between the private life and public activity, especially when public
official is involved in unreasonable private conduct. Right to know of the
citizen, right to report of the media prevails, right to information takes over
and privacy has to concede to these rights.
Tata,
Radia Tapes and privacy!
It’s
interesting to note that Ratan Tata, renowned industrialist of 320,000 crore
salt-to-software conglomerate, filed a writ petition to save his right to life.
His petition was against the publication of intercepts of his telephonic
conversation with Neera Radia, corporate communicator for Tata group. He
contended that as Radia’s phones were tapped by government agencies specially
for investigating a possible offence, the recorded conversations should have
been used for that purpose alone.
Among
different prayers, Tata sought the apex court to direct the government to
ensure that no further publication of these recordings, either as audio files
through the Internet or as any print as transcripts appears in any media –
print or electronic – and for that purpose take steps as may be necessary,
…under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995, the Information
Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and any other
law as may be necessary.’’
Can there be
secrecy in the name of privacy as a cover available to conversations about
public affairs? Whether the right to know of the people should prevail over
privacy of the public personalities in these circumstances? What private life
is discussed in these tapes?
RTI as an
exception to privacy
With RTI Act
around, privacy is limited by Section 8(1)(j). Though privacy appears to be an
exception to the Right to information, it in fact imposes restrictions on the
right to privacy. Section 8(1)(j) says that disclosure may be refused if the
request pertains to "personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual."
There will be
no right to privacy if there is: a) a relation to public activity or interest
and b) if there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual or
privacy warranted to be invaded. Third
condition prescribed is, if there is larger public interest in disclosure,
there will be no privacy. Fourth condition: if the information could be given
to Parliament or Legislature, it can be given to ordinary citizen also.
Fifth
Condition: if in comparison, public interest is found in disclosure than
securing protected interest. The right to privacy must yield to right to
disclosure under the five aforementioned conditions. Each bit of information
sought has to be examined on this touchstone and disclosability of the same has
to be decided. Public interest and
accountability of public authority to public in general shall decide the RTI of
citizen overriding the right to privacy.
.JPG)
.JPG)
