SECTION B
Essay
125 marks
Is sting operation an invasion on privacy?
WRITE IN
90 min
1,000–1,200 words
Reading the topic
The question asks whether hidden-camera journalism that exposes wrongdoing violates the privacy of those filmed. The examiner expects a balance between the public's right to know and the right to privacy, now a fundamental right after Puttaswamy (2017), and tests for when a sting is justified.
ThesisA sting operation is a justified intrusion only when it exposes a serious public wrong that cannot be revealed otherwise, and becomes an invasion of privacy when used for entrapment, sensation or private lives.
Dimensions to cover
- 1Constitution: privacy is part of Article 21 after Puttaswamy, so any intrusion needs legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality
- 2Public interest: stings have exposed corruption among MPs and in defence deals, serving accountability where official channels failed
- 3Entrapment: inducing someone to commit an offence they would not otherwise commit is manufacturing news, not exposing it
- 4Misuse: fake or doctored stings can destroy innocent lives before the truth emerges
- 5Data law: the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 lacks a specific journalism exemption, raising fresh questions for investigative reporting
- 6Ethics and regulation: editorial codes and courts must judge whether the person is public, the wrong serious and the method necessary
Counter-view
- Some argue any secret recording is wrong because it uses deception. The essay should reply that deception may be justified against powerful wrongdoers when transparent methods fail, subject to strict tests
Open and close
- Open: Open with the 2007 Delhi teacher who was beaten by a mob after a TV channel aired a staged sting against her, only for it to be exposed as fake days later
- Close: Conclude that stings deserve protection as a last resort against powerful wrongdoing, under clear tests of public interest and proportionality
Where marks usually go
- Ignoring the Puttaswamy judgment and treating privacy as a mere legal interest
- Defending or condemning all stings without distinguishing public interest from voyeurism
- Writing about media ethics generally without engaging the privacy question
Examples that fit
- HistoryTehelka's Operation West End in 2001 filmed politicians and officials accepting money in fake defence deals, a sting that served public interest.Tehelka investigation, 2001; Justice K. Venkataswami Commission
- CaseAfter a 2005 sting showed MPs taking money to ask questions, Parliament expelled eleven MPs, and the Supreme Court upheld it in Raja Ram Pal (2007).Supreme Court of India, Raja Ram Pal v Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007
- CaseIn R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994) the Supreme Court recognised a right to be let alone while allowing publication of public records.Supreme Court of India, R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, 1994
- CaseJustice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) declared privacy a fundamental right and set the proportionality test.Supreme Court of India, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, 2017
- CaseA fake 2007 TV sting falsely accused Delhi teacher Uma Khurana, leading to mob violence and the Delhi High Court taking suo motu notice of sting ethics.Delhi High Court, Court on its own motion v State, 2007