Shooting the messenger

Starting with Tehelka reporter Aniruddh Bahal exposing on camera how the then BJP president accepted bundles of currency notes, the Indian electronic media has in the last few years used several other undercover investigations to expose corruption and wrongdoing. Popularly described as sting operations, these are investigations conducted by journalists armed with hidden cameras and posing as businessmen, agents or supplicants. Admittedly, there are ethical questions raised by such operations""specifically invasion of privacy and entrapment. Media organisations using such sting operations must satisfy themselves about the ethical correctness of what they are doing, and the authenticity of the instruments of evidence (mostly tapes), and also ensure strict supervision so that people caught in compromising situations are not subjected to blackmail or any other non-journalistic end-use. If these safeguards are in place (and there has been no evidence yet of wrongdoing), there should be no reason to doubt the role of sting operations in the functioning of a free and vigilant media in a democracy.

Viewed from this perspective, the Supreme Court's recent observations on sting operations are unfortunate. A panel of three judges has observed that the outsourcing of sting operations by television news channels must undergo scrutiny, and whether a sting operation is in the public or some private interest will have to be examined eventually. These are not suo motu observations, but have come in the wake of a petition filed by CNN-IBN editor Rajdeep Sardesai, seeking exemption from appearing before the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly. The charge against Mr Sardesai is that by showing on his channel how some members of the UP legislative assembly were involved in corruption (using a sting operation), he had breached the privilege enjoyed by the legislators. Taken together, it is reasonable to wonder if the country's legislators and the judiciary are keen on providing the necessary support and freedom to the media, to enable it to play the watchdog role expected of it.

It is important to note that the apex court and the UP assembly are not exercised over the authenticity of the sting operation, or the specific incident involving legislators. The Supreme Court's concern is that the tapes in sting operations are hawked to media organisations for relatively large sums of money, and that these are therefore conducted as a money-making operation and not in the public interest. This is unusual logic, for by this yardstick all agencies that sell news to various media organisations should shut shop, since theirs too are money-making operations. Similarly, the UP assembly's concern is the breach of its members' privilege (a subject that is not codified and therefore remains open to arbitrary interpretation), and not the declining standards of probity among its members, as captured through the sting operation.

Will subjecting outsourced sting operations to scrutiny, as observed by the Supreme Court, help? And who should decide whether a sting operation is in the public or private interest? These are questions that are best answered by the people undertaking such activities, and if there is misuse in terms of blackmail or anything else, there are specific laws to address those situations. A sting operation that fails to pass the test of authenticity and public interest will also fail to improve a TV channel's viewership. In other words, there are systemic as well as market correctives that will apply. Meanwhile, the courts and the legislators would do well to refrain from shooting the messenger.