Sl. No. F. No. 14/457/04-05-PCI
Ms. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra,
(through advocate)
New Delhi.
Versus
The Editor,
“today”,
English afternoon”
New Delhi.
Complaint
This complaint-dated 20.12.2004 has been filed by Ms. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra {through her counsel Shri Arun Bhardwaj} against “Today” an English daily afternoon newspaper of New Delhi published by the India Today Group for publication of two unauthorised articles/photographs of her son Master Raihan Rajiv Vadra. The front paged impugned publication is captioned: “Priyanka’s son Rehan in freak accident followed up with a detailed report captioned– mini catastrophe for Priyanka G, RobertV. Docs says cool it – Son down first, son rise next!” On both the pages, the respondent “Today” published the photographs of Master Raihan and on Page 3 of the paper was also a photograph of the parents. According to the complainant, the impugned article/photographs published by the respondent do not involve any public interest except generating undue voyeuristic and morbid public curiosity about the minor child which is against the interst of the child. The counsel contended that the contents of the article/photographs published are highly objectionable and directly infringe her son’s right to privacy and normal upbringing. The complainant has submitted that the impugned article created unnecessary controversies, which were unwarranted and against the interest of the child. It and the press/media unethically tried to drag the child into controversy. The complainant has submitted that Master Raihan Rajiv Vadra is a minor child and publication of such article/photograph are illegal, unwarranted and against journalistic ethics. Such article/photograph un-necessarily bring the child into public focus, which inter-alia infringe his right of privacy. Further that many a time the press photographs/media persons unauthorisedly took photographs of the minor child when he was in public/private functions. Such irresponsible behaviour of the media being unethical and against journalistic ethics may cause serious damage/injury to the child and expose him to serious security threats.
The complainant informed the Council that a legal notice dated 29.10.2004 was sent to the respondent setting out their objection with a request to cease and desist from publishing article/photograph/story etc about the child but no reply was received. The counsel requested the Council to issue appropriate orders/directions to the respondent not to publish article/photograph of his client’s son without obtaining prior permission. The complainant also referred to some previous report/photograph of similar nature in other papers identifying the child in public places.
Written statement of the respondent
Show-cause notice to the respondent Editor “today” was issued on 28.1.2005. In response, the counsel for the respondent in his written statement dated 7.3.2005 submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint are misconceived, devoid of merits and untenable. The respondent denied each and every allegation made in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the article published by them was a report to generate awareness regarding use and need of security by the public figures in their day-to-day life and did not infringe or intrude into the private life of any individual or person. The respondent further stated that they are aware of their responsibilities of providing correct and unaligned news. They always maintained a balance between the citizen’s right to privacy and the public’s right to information. The respondent editor “Today” submitted that the write up complained against reflected upon a true incident and was in fact an eye opener of sorts as it gave details of working of private hospitals and also the need of security for public figures even at hospitals. The respondent submitted that the allegations are purely imaginary apprehensions. The respondent contended that any conduct or event involving a public figure, which impinges upon the public, might reasonably be made public. A public figure can reasonably be subject to greater public scrutiny than his/her fellow citizens. The complainant and her family members had made public appearances at numerous times on various occasions and they have been reported and covered by national dailies and television channels. They had by their own volition and conduct rendered themselves to public scrutiny. The complainant belongs to a high profile family whose generations has actively participated in national politics and has attained important public positions. The family members have always been part of the country politics and had been in limelight. The accidents and incidents involving them generate public interest as the people directly or indirectly feel attached and involved for they construe them either their representatives or leaders in their own right. Contending that no prior restrains could be imposed of any publication the respondent produced citation from (i) (Lord Denings in Schering Chemicals vs. Falkman (1981) All E R 321 (330,347) CA) and (ii) (New York Times Vs. United States (1971) 40 US 713) that the complaint deserves no consideration, as the allegation were based on apprehensions that too not even real and reasonable and as such frivolous and unreal apprehensions cannot be pleaded as grounds for any relief. Denying the charge of infringing the privacy or endangering the security of the child, the respondent contended that the complainant was being too sensitive as a public person.
A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 4.4.2005 for information/counter comments, if any.
APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee in its meeting held on 25.4.2005 at New Delhi. Both the parties were represented by their counsels. The counsel for the complainant submitted that he did not receive the notice of the meeting. Though the submission was not accepted by the Committee a proof of service was on record, it acceded to the request of the counsel by adjourning the matter to the next day.
The matter was then called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 28.4.2005. Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate, appeared for the complainant Ms. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, while Shri Sushil Dutt Salwan and Ms. Shagun Bhargava, Advocates, represented the respondent newspaper, TODAY, English afternoon daily.
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
The Counsel for the complainant contended that the impugned report had over-sensationalized a minor incident and the concern that any sensitive parents would have shown towards their child. He appreciated that the conduct and the actions of public persons were, to an extent, open to press scrutiny but private actions and interests of the minor child had to be given their due respect. He did not advocate curbs on the freedom of the press but press should appreciate the reasonable restrictions placed upon this freedom by the constitution. In the instant case, the family to which the child belonged was a high profile family that was under serious security threat. Therefore the parents of the child made every effort to keep the child away from public gaze. The respondent had brought the child into unnecessary public focus that could be a security hazard and even hamper the child’s normal growth. The security concerns expressed in the impugned report gave it a political overtone. He contended that if the report served any public interest, the complainant would not have objected to it. The accident was a private incident attended to in private. Then there could be no possible reason for all the hype the report tried to create. The front page headline given to the report covered almost the whole page followed by a short text and accompanied by a photograph of the minor, while the heading on the second page appeared to be quite meaningless with yet more photographs and there was no reason to devote nearly two pages of the afternoon paper to the incident, the photographs of the minor and his parents. He averred that since such sensational reporting affected the natural upbringing of the child and posed serious security threat to him, the press be advised to so act as to spare the child from undue publicity or public exposure.
The Counsel for the respondent denied that any attempt was made to hound the child. At no time had the child been pursued or harassed by the press. They had utmost respect for the concern of a mother over her child’s security and normal upbringing but were constrained to point out that the photographs carried in the paper had been taken at times other than the incident and when the child was at public places where he had apparently been taken by or with the permission of the parents themselves. He denied that the article had any political overtones. He further contended that a public figure is open to comment by the press. In the instant case, the family to which the child belonged was a high-profile public family, so occurrence of any event concerning them was of interest to the public. They had abided by the norms laid down by the UN in reporting on minors. He sighted the rulings of the American Courts that had ruled in favor of the press in coverage of the activities of the children of important personalities when at public places. The Counsel further submitted that after the impugned report they had received the objections of the complainant herein and hence thereafter, respecting the concerns and sentiments of a mother, not reported any further in the matter. He stated that while they could not give any absolute assurance that they would not, in future, cover the child at any time since this would necessarily depend on the incident to be covered, they would respect the privacy the complainant desired for the child.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
The committee considered the written material before it and heard the oral submissions of the Counsels for the parties. It observed that the issue before it required consideration in the larger context of the freedom of the press vis-a-vis the right of privacy of a public figure and her family. Another issue for consideration was whether the impugned report compromised on the safety of the child.
It had been very aptly said, “the newspapers have shed and continue to shed more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity.” The constitution of the country guarantees to the press under Article 19 (1)(a) the freedom of speech and expression but as with any other right, this right has necessarily to balanced with the rights of another. Right to privacy of an individual is one such inviolable right. The question is to what extent do figures in the public eye and those closely associated with them enjoy this right to privacy.
The Press Council had dwelt on the issue of privacy of public figures in late 1990’s and based in its deliberations drawn up the following norm
“7(1)”
Right to Privacy is an inviolable human right. However, the degree of privacy differs from person to person and from situation to situation. The public person who functions under public gaze as an emissary/representative of the public cannot expect to be afforded the same degree of privacy as a private person. His acts and conduct as are of public interest (‘public interest’ being distinct and separate from ‘of interest to public’) even if conducted in private may be brought to public knowledge through the medium of the press. The press has however, a corresponding duty to ensure that the information about such acts and conduct of public interest of the public person is obtained through fair means, is properly verified and then reported accurately. For obtaining information in respect of acts done or conducted away from public gaze, the press is not expected to use surveillance devices. For obtaining information about private talks and discussion while the press is expected not to badger the public persons, the public persons are also expected to bring more openness in their functioning and co-operate with the press in its duty of informing the public about the acts of their representatives.
The above norm apparently applies to those who are known public figures and have courted publicity. But what about the rights of a minor?
UN. Convention on the Rights of a Child (Nov. 1989) provides in Article 16, thus:
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation
In U.K. a situation had arisen when the need was felt to protect the natural upbringing of Prince William while he was still a minor. The British Press Complaints Commission had laid down the following four key principles to guide the Press making it clear that these principles related as much to any other child as Prince William:
1. no photographs of Prince William taken in private places- that is places where there is a reasonable expectancy of privacy- should be published;
2. as with any young person, Prince William is entitled to expect that what is written about him – and his friends and colleagues- is accurate;
3. he is entitled to respect for his private life- such as home and family life, telephone calls, health matters and correspondence;
4. he should be able to go about his daily life free from physical intrusion or harassment- and under no circumstances should pictures of him obtained as a result of intimidation or persistent pursuit be published.
The British Courts in Naomi Campbell v/s The Mirror Group of Newspapers held in 2004 that
“Where an individual is a public figure, he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the appropriate circumstances. A public figure is entitled to a private life. The individual, however, should recognize that because of his public position, he must expect and accept that his actions will be more closely scrutinized by the media. Even trivial facts relating to a public figure can be of great interest to readers and other observers of the media. Conduct which in the case of a private individual would not be an appropriate subject of comment can be the proper subject of comment in the case if a public figure…. The higher the profile of the individual concerned the more likely that this would be the position. Whether you have courted publicity or not, you may be a legitimate subject of public attention. If you have courted public attention, then you have less ground to object to the intrusion that follows.”
In America where journalists are protected by the explicit mention of freedom of Press in the well known First Amendment, the pursuit by the press of Chelsea Clinton when she was still a minor, provoked heated debate about whether she was ‘a valid journalistic subject’. The opinion was divided and some believed that she had never sought a public profile for herself so she should be let alone. Opposed to this, was the opinion that Clintons’ knew what they were getting into when they ran for Presidency and that sacrificing family’s privacy goes with the territory.
Having considered the matter in all its aspects, the committee noted that the impugned report accurately reported a minor accident involving the minor child of a public personality. The said public figure had more often than not sought to protect the minor from public gaze owning to the threat perceptions and the related security concerns, as also the desire to provide the child a normal upbringing. The respondent claimed that the impugned report was based on the information given out by the hospital at which the child was treated and since he belonged to a family that had for long been in public life inviting public curiosity even about their trivial activities, the report had been carried keeping in mind the public interest in the issue. However, on coming to know the concern of the mother of the child, they had refrained from any further coverage of the matter.
First and foremost, the committee would advice the press to delineate on ‘public interest’. What is ‘of public interest’ is clearly distinguishable from that which is ‘in public interest’ and press as a purveyor of news and information has primarily to gear itself towards the latter. The Council’s norms on the issue have already been laid down. The committee felt that the impugned report’s presentation was not proportionate to the scale of the incident under report. It appeared to have been blown out of proportion. The paper also made no effort to seek the consent of the parents who have for long striven to maintain their child’s privacy even while the family, as political persons, was in the limelight. However, since the learned Counsel for the respondent had categorically stated that having been made aware of the objections and concerns of the complainant herein, they have refrained any further reporting on the child, the committee recommended to the Council to close the case with an advice to the press to strike a balance between the freedom of the press and the right of an individual to his/ her privacy.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.