Last week Cliff Richard, the famous British singer – who had sung the very popular number "Congratulations and celebrations, when I tell everyone that you're in love with me…" recorded fifty years ago in 1968 – won a lawsuit and damages of £ 210,000 against the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC for infringing his privacy. This is a real test of the tussle between an individual's privacy and the right of the society to be informed. The matter pertains to the United Kingdom, however, it may set an example, if not a precedent, for the press to follow, in liberal democratic countries.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

There has been, of late, considerable concern regarding the privacy aspects of individuals which are being threatened increasingly due to invasive technologies and extremely aggressive media coverage. Often, somewhat routine matters are converted into sensational news, which does not serve the purpose of informing the public but only helps in creating sensationalism. Freedom of press is necessary and fundamental in an evolved society, especially in a democratic setup as effective debate, dialogue, discussion and deliberation can only take place when the people are well-informed. Transparency, rather than opacity, is the rule. But, there is a thin dividing line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

The facts of this case are intriguing as there is a celebrity involved and it is well-known that the celebrities find it next to impossible to maintain their privacy. The media persons are infamous for following the celebrities almost everywhere, usually stepping into the forbidden private domain.

There are, on the other hand, young and promising performers who are always on the lookout for an opportunity to be in the news somehow; and if they don't get one, they would rather create one on their own by doing something absolutely stupid so as to draw the attention of media. Even for such persons who have on their own tried to grab the headlines, there is undoubtedly an impermissible sphere where no one is allowed to without the individual's consent. Thus, for all solicited and unsolicited, formal and informal, official and unofficial, professional and personal, and other different categories, there is a periphery, which at times may be very clear and at times it may be blurred. At that moment it depends on the individual's judgement to understand the limit to which one can go.

In 2014 the police had raided Richard's apartment relating to certain allegations for alleged offences in 1980s. He was neither arrested nor charged. However, the BBC had covered the police investigation intensively and even used a helicopter hovering over Richard's apartment to get better coverage. From a mediaperson's point of view, there was nothing wrong and BBC was just doing its job in the best possible manner to report to the world about the details of the police investigation and what was being talked about the suspect. It is interesting to note that the police has already agreed to pay to Richard £ 400,000 after settling with him without contesting the case in a court of law. It appears to be a matter of excessive enthusiasm shown by the BBC in covering the matter as a celebrity was involved. The question to be asked is: had it been a common man would the BBC be equally interested in reporting the matter and also used a helicopter to get to know the finer details? In all probability, the answer would be no.

The judge in this case has written that every suspect in police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" which was obviously denied to Richard, and whatever had been investigated by the police might have been of interest to gossipmongers but it would be difficult to say that it was a case of real public interest.. This is a little difficult to accept. Imagine superstars – Bollywood actors, political leaders and cricketers, for example – in India. People surely are more interested to know about them and in case there is police investigation into any of their activities, it is quite natural for the people to be curious to know more and more about them. They are like demi-gods. It is not easy for their fans and followers to accept any allegation against them, and if something wrong is proved against them, they are devastated, shattered, and wrecked. There are a number of instances when some of them have self-immolated themselves. Hence, it is not correct to say that there is no real public interest.

On this ground, there are very high chances that the decision shall be appealed by BBC. Thus, the decision appears to be creating confusion, rather than clarifying the issue with conviction.

Congratulations and confusion!

The author is a professor at IIM-A, akagarwal@iima.ac.in