Sting Operation : It is called a major human right violation by media

Sheikh Noorul Hassan *

Sting Operation, known as 'Dansh Patrakarita' in Hindi, is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. In performing sting operation the privacy of the person is affected because his consent is not taken while filming him. Privacy is what is demanded by and for each and every person in his or her life. And being privacy means remain aloof from the society on some issues of personal life. But, the question is, can Sting Operation can take away this privacy and make it public.

This is the most burning issue in the entire world today. Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) defines Right to Privacy as-No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence not to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of law against such interference or attack.

Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India provides for nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Amongst the first cases on the freedom of expression were those of Romesh Thapar (Seminar) and Brij Bhushan (Organiser). In Romesh Thapar's case restrictions were placed on the journal for securing public safety and in Brij Bhushan's case pre-censorship was ordered on the journal in the interest of public safety. Both the curbs were struck down as constituting an unreasonable restriction on the Freedom of Expression. These decisions however led to the First Amendment to the Constitution wherein 'public order' was inserted in Article 19(2) as a condition which could bear nexus to a restriction on article 19 (1) (a).

'Freedom of Press' has been held to be a part of the Fundamental Right of 'Freedom of Speech and expression' guaranteed by article 19(1) (a) to the citizens of India. Is had been held that 'Freedom of Press' is necessary for exercise of fundamental freedom of citizens of 'speech and expression'. And so 'Freedom of Press' cannot be termed as unconstitutional and void. And as the Constitution says this can only be exercised till it does not harm the decency/morality of a person.

The Constitution of India gives full liberty to press but with strings attached. On 18th June, 1951 Article 19(2) was amended by adding "reasonable" to restrictions. The restriction must be reasonable. In simple words, it must not be excessive or misappropriate. The procedure and the manner of imposition of the restriction also must be just, fair and reasonable.

In a landmark judgement in the case of Sakal papers, the Supreme Court held that Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits imposition of reasonable restrictions on the heads specified in Article 19(2) and on no other grounds. It is, therefore, not open for the state to curtail the Freedom of Speech and Expression for promoting the general welfare of a section or a group of people unless its action can be justified by the law falling under clause 2 of Article 19.

And moreover it is valid point that at a certain point all Sting Operations do violate Right to Privacy in some degree because during a Sting Operation, in nearly all its cases, the person being filmed is not aware of the presence of a hidden camera. This means that he does not consent to be filmed, without which, in ordinary course, no one has the right to film anyone.

However, it may be argued that a illegal act being committed by a public servant during his office hours and in abuse of spirit of his office are not worthy of protection under Right to Privacy law. Besides, what a public servant does while discharging his duty is in public domain. In such cases, public interest does seem to weigh heavier compared to Right to Privacy. If a person has no duty towards general public, his morality questionable conduct is not open to public scrutiny unless he violates the law by such conduct.

Right to Privacy is implicit to Article 21. According to Subba Rao J 'liberty' in Article 21 is comprehensive enough to include privacy. He said that although it is true that he does not explicitly declare the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right but the right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. It is regarded as a Fundamental Right but cannot be called absolute. It can be restricted on the basis of compelling public interest.

The court, however, has limited to personal intimacies of the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child bearing. On the other side, in the Sting Operations done by the media in India, only the working of the public servants in their offices is covered. The official work of the public servant should be transparent and open to all as it is in the public interest.

But the court's decision the Right to Privacy does not cover this official work into the purview of its definition. Sting Operation began with a laudable objective of exposing corruption in high places and degenerated into cheap entertainment.

Sting Operations are generally carried out to trap the corrupt, the underworld dons and spies. They are also undertaken to establish adultery. Sting Operation can also be useful in the arrest of terrorists and anti-national elements.

The spy camera of media caught 11 M.P's accepting bribe for asking question in the parliament. When the media gets all the evidence against the corrupt and the wrongdoer and their aim is public interest, why do media not file a case in court and submit these as proof? This will lead to punishing of these wrongdoers, which is in public interest.

Or, even after getting such evidences, why no report is given to public authorities and make them take some actions? It is a way of helping law, as media is the fourth estate of governance. But, on the other hand, such cases cannot be filed in courts with these tapes, or audio or video recording as evidence or proof because courts do not consider theses as credible evidence and proof.

Moreover, as the Government Machinery is not functioning properly, that is why such instances are increasing and so what is the point taking it to public authorities. Apart from this, when all this is exposed by media, the general crowd gets aware of the illegal business going on in the so called "Government Machinery". The news Broadcasters Association (NBA) justified Sting Operation as "illegitimate journalistic tool".

It can easily be made out from all these is that one of the basic reasons to carry out Sting Operation is to increase TRP ratings or to 'interest the public' rather than 'public interest'. Sting operation in most of the cases is against the ethical norms.

Most media organisation in India does not follow any embodied ethical norms and if it is followed than the approach is top to bottom. In simple words the question of ethics is decided by the people sitting in the top hierarchy of the media organisation, hence it is questionable. There is no defined law for sting operation in India and because of it, it is often use to blackmail. The recent case of ZEE is a classic example whereby sting operation was conducted against Jindal group and then reverse sting operation took place.

In R.K Anand BMW case the Supreme Court took positive note of the sting operation and expressed that sting operation was conducted in good faith to bring justice to the victim. Bangaru Laxman, veteran BJP leader was caught while accepting bribe but sting operation fails to prove enough to convict him in the court. There are many cases of sting operation where the sting operation is conducted to induce the person and were used to serve their selfish motives. Sting operation are used as entertainment by many media organisation mainly news channel. This is against the ethical norms and sting operation has been converted into commodity which is used purely for business.

The culture of sting operation in present form carries negative image of whole media industry. It can be used without floating the ethical norms of journalism and in good faith to help the government in correcting the system. It should not be deterrent to daily functioning of government department and machinery.

There should be proper guidelines for the working journalist within ethical framework to conduct sting operation and use for public good rather than personal gains. It can be used as a tool to empower the public and strengthens the ties between public and government.