The media discharges a public function and is amenable to writ jurisdiction for violating a victim's right to privacy.

The daughter of the Respondent (ABC), referred to as 'X', filed an FIR on August 2, 2005, alleging sexual assault by her father, 'P'.

On August 7, 2005, despite ABC’s express refusal to grant an interview or entry to the Appellant’s crew, the Appellant broadcast a news item on its "Aaj Tak" channel.

The broadcast disclosed P’s full name, his official designation, his office address, the age of X, and visual shots of the residential colony and the doorstep of their house.

ABC filed a writ petition alleging violation of X’s right to privacy and Journalistic Norms.

The learned Single Judge awarded ₹5 lakhs in compensation, which the Appellant challenged, arguing that as a private entity, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The court applied the "Function Test" for Article 226, as established in Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V. Rudani, which holds that a writ lies against any person or body performing a "public duty" regardless of its private status.

It relied on Zee Telefilms v. Union of India to affirm that private bodies exercising public functions are subject to judicial review and Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan regarding the definition of public interest.

Regarding privacy, the court applied the principles from R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which recognized the right to privacy as implicit in Article 21 and specifically protected victims of sexual assault from identity disclosure.

Finally, it invoked the "Horizontal Applicability" of fundamental rights from Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP, allowing enforcement of Articles 19 and 21 against non-State actors.

The Court determined that the Appellant discharges a "public function" by disseminating news and moulding public opinion, which carries an inherent public duty to act with restraint.

The Court rejected the "sovereign function" limitation, noting that the "nature of the duty" is the relevant criterion for Article 226.

On merits, the Court found the broadcast was an "illegal" intrusion into X's life.

It held that disclosing the father’s name, workplace, and the specific residential layout was "patently sufficient" to identify the victim within her community.

The Court dismissed the Appellant's argument that Section 228-A IPC didn't apply at the time, ruling that the right to privacy is an inherent constitutional right that does not require a specific statute for recognition.

The "No means no" principle was applied to ABC's refusal to be interviewed, stating the media cannot use "public interest" to override a citizen's prerogative to remain private.

The Court affirmed that monetary compensation is a valid public law remedy for such violations, even when committed by private actors and directed the Appellant to pay the remaining compensation of ₹5 lakhs to ABC/X within four weeks, failing which a 12% p.a. interest rate would apply.