Kerala   

Breach of individual's privacy is violation of rights, says SHRC

Special Correspondent

Rights panel recommends action against Editor of newspaper

Thiruvananthapuram: The State Human Rights Commission has ruled that breach of an individual's privacy is a violation of human rights.

Delivering his ruling on a petition filed by a woman hailing from Kasaragod against a Kanhangad-based newspaper on charges of human rights violation, SHRC Acting Chairperson V.P. Mohan Kumar held the daily's Editor guilty of violation of human rights by publishing a news item against her. The commission recommended that the State Government take stringent action against the Editor by moving the Press Council of India. The chairperson also ordered forwarding of the copy of his ruling to the PCI.

The petition, filed by Ajitha K. of Kasaragod, alleged that the daily, The Latest, had carried a news item that violated her right to fair reputation, privacy and dignity. The commission issued notice to the respondent under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Mr. Mohan Kumar observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the Right to Life, and Personal Liberty of a citizen. Right to Live, Right to One's Dignity, Right to Liberty and Right to Equality, etc., show that Right to Life embraces more than a mere existence of an animal. Right to Reputation is part of that liberty. An infringement of Right to Reputation was a violation of Article 21. Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, defines that any violation of Right to Live, Liberty, Equality and Dignity of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution is a violation of human rights.

The Commission chairman said the woman was a mother of three. Any hurt to the privacy and dignity of these children by the publication of any damaging news about their mother's conduct is a violation of the right to dignity and reputation of their family. If the publication of news in a paper is for public good, then it may be a different issue. Even then, the Commission is of the view that as long as the news does not serve any public benefit, the publication would not serve any purpose. If the petitioner had been earning money from the public exchequer, then the news about her private life may probably be of some relevance to the public at large. Even in such cases, publication of such news items would not serve any public purpose. The Commission said the contentious report was nothing but a figment of imagination of the reporter and was intended to tarnish the image of the person. "Such activities of a newspaper were a serious violation of Human Rights," the commission said.

Stating that it had no doubt that the respondent was guilty of violation of human rights, the Commission came down heavily on two women witnesses, one of them a former chairperson of Kanhangad Municipality, for their deposition on behalf of the respondent terming them as discreditable and untrustworthy. It said it was of the view that the respondent did not act with the responsibility of an Editor of a newspaper. He seriously breached the right conferred on an Editor.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Augustine Thevarparambil beatified
EC `partial' in holding staggered polls: CPI(M)
IB official, three family members found dead
Hour of reckoning for Karunakaran's party
Breach of individual's privacy is violation of rights, says SHRC
`Government sabotaging Sabarimala development'
Congress will win 85 seats in State: Moily
Plea to bring mason's body home
UDF claim exposed: Achuthanandan
IB official, three family members found dead
Security tightened in Marad
Ramanatukara
Briefly

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu