What the courts have said

While the Delhi HC has warned against entrapment,the SC has given its nod to sting operations for a public cause....

In September 2007,the Delhi High Court had compared the sting operations conducted by television channels to the manner in which apsara Menaka had set out to entrap Sage Vishwamitra. So was it sheer entrapment when former Andhra Pradesh Governor N D Tiwari succumbed to the inducements of a woman,identified as Radhika,who claimed to have secretly shot video clips of him in bed with three women? Or was it decent investigative journalism by ABN Andhra Jyothy channel to broadcast the clips allegedly handed over to it by Radhika?

The lack of specific laws has left the countrys media to battle with two contradictory judgments,the latest ones,on the decency of sting operations.

The September 19,2007 judgment of the Delhi High Court cautions TV channels and media houses to prohibit production or broadcast of a programme sourced from the entrapment of an individual or which is fabricated,intrusive and sensitive. The court had taken suo motu cognizance of the entrapment and a botched sting on MCD school teacher Uma Khurana.

The Division Bench of then Chief Justice of Delhi M K Sharma,now a judge in the Supreme Court,was not the least tolerant to intrusive sting operations even if the programme may have been in public interest.

No doubt the media is well within its rightful domain when it seeks to use tools of investigative journalism to bring us face to face with the ugly underbelly of the society, the court observed. However,it is not permissible for the media to entice and try to actively induce an individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not known and likely to commit. Sage Vishwamitra succumbed to the enchantment of Maneka.

The court even drew a 10-point guideline for editors to act as regulators when the eager scribe brings in the scoop:

If sting outsourced,get certificate saying contents authentic.

Maintain record in writing on sting.

Committee headed by ex-HC judge to clear sting.

Unedited,edited tapes to be submitted to panel.

Avoid shocking,offending audience.

Chief Editor of channel to be responsible for self-regulation.

Compliance with Cable Television Network Regulation Act,1995.

Should not invade personal or private affairs,or create public panic or offend religious feelings.

Ensure accuracy.

Observe community standards of

decency.

Story continues below this ad

The High Court had asked the government to consider these guidelines in the Broadcasting Bill.

But the Supreme Court on July 29,2009 said a sting operation is an incalculably more risky and dangerous thing to do than normal reporting. The Bench said an expose is based on deception and would invite far greater legal restrictions.

The three-judge Bench,deciding an appeal filed by advocate R K Anand against the NDTV expose in the Sanjiv Nanda trial,shot down the Delhi High Court suggestion to the government to form a panel headed by a former high court judge to clear stings before broadcast.

Any attempt to control and regulate the media from outside is likely to cause more harm than good. The norms to regulate the media and to raise its professional standards must come from inside, the Bench of Justices B N Agarwal,G S Singhvi and Aftab Alam said.

Story continues below this ad

The court rejected the High Courts opinion that public interest should not override the right to privacy of an individual. By refusing to accept that the NDTV sting obstructed judicial proceedings in the trial court,the court,besides accepting the R K Anand expose to be in public interest,also gave the green signal to TV channels to telecast sting programmes which serve an important public cause.

While accepting that the countrys electronic news media is young and in quest of excellence have still a long way to go,the court puts in a word to privately-run TV channels to cut the shrill note after an expose. A calmer approach would still capture the attention of the audience,the apex court noted.