While cracking down on drunk driving, police often conduct random checks at DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) points. There are times when people who get caught at these checkpoints are filmed by the media and the footage is later aired (without the permission of the suspects or the cops) on news channels. However, recording and broadcasting videos of people without their permission is an invasion of their privacy as well as an act of shaming them in public.
In this regard, Ramesh Naidu, Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Rachakonda, says, “Airing videos without the permission of the affected party is an offence. We ask them not to broadcast these because the footage may contain photos of minors and girls. They are also liable to defamation cases if the affected person sues the TV channel. Moreover, when we don’t show the faces of criminals (masked) who commit serious crimes like rape, then why show the faces of those who are caught in a petty case?”
Which impels us to ask why are TV channel crews even allowed to come near the checkpoints? Why do cops allow them to get away with the footage? IPS officer C.V. Anand, who coined the drunken driving concept with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), says, “We do not call the media, they get to know about it automatically. Moreover, we have no right to stop the paparazzi since the patrolling happens in a public place.” Even our Constitution does have a specific law safeguarding the identity of the minors. “As per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, minors or their identities cannot be exposed to any media. As per Section 21, a fine of '25,000 will be imposed on a person as punishment if he/she reveals their identities,” says Mahesh Bhagwat, Police Commissioner, Rachakonda.
While hundreds of youngsters get caught every month, Arun (a minor), a first-year engineering student, has been a victim of such public shaming too. “Recently, I was stopped at a drunken driving checkpoint at Mint Compound. When I was undergoing the breath analyser test, the TV cameras shot the entire episode. Since I was not driving under the influence of alcohol, I was let free. But after a couple of days, when my aunt saw me on a news channel, she thought that I was involved in the case,” shares Arun.
Nageswara Rao, Sr. Advocate, High Court, mentions that, unfortunately, there are no fundamental laws for privacy in our country. “There are no specific laws for privacy, and it all depends on the intention of the broadcaster. If the broadcaster is portraying you in a bad light by showing your face in a context where you were caught (even though you weren’t drunk), then you can file a defamation suit under IPC Section 499, and the broadcaster is liable for punishment under IPC Section 500,” he says.
Distressed and humiliated
Srinivas, 62, father of 32-year-old Sirish, a software engineer, shares that the photos of his son, who was found to be driving in an inebriated condition, were widely circulated. “The cops have seized his motorcycle and his photos and videos did the rounds on TV. After the city court told my son to perform the duties of a regular traffic constable for an entire day (as punishment), his photos and videos were flashed across all platforms again. It was very humiliating. My wife fell sick and she was hospitalised after seeing his pictures go viral,” laments Srinivas.
It’s not a murder!
Similarly, when 20-year-old Asif was sentenced to one-day imprisonment, after he was caught for the second time in a drunk-driving check, his mother Shabana was furious when his photographs were being circulated everywhere. “Imagine what would have happened had his college management seen his photos? I was scared that the college authorities might demand an explanation from us. Also, when he was being taken to serve his one-day term, he was being clicked and videographed. He hasn't committed a murder; how can they interfere and ruin our privacy?” she questions.
Privacy, an expectation?
This is an acceptable practice as long as the dignity of the individual is maintained and the recording is not being misused. This is a deeply unsettled area of law. However, cases so far have suggested that privacy is only an issue if the information is collected in situations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
— Anjani Kumar, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Law and Order
Uncivilised behaviour
It’s an absolute invasion of privacy. Every offence made will result in a punishment. The videographing and shaming of person is clearly outside any civilian procedure and is actually barbaric. It is also unconstitutional.”
— Niranjan Reddy, Senior Advocate, AP High Court
A constitutional safeguard
As far as invasion of privacy is concerned, technically, under the Constitution of India, Article 21 does provide a safeguard and depriving somebody of their right to privacy is definitely invasion of privacy.”
— Akun Sabharwal, Excise Enforcement Director
— As told to Swati Sharma.
