Is sting operation an invasion on privacy?

When privacy of any individual gets hurt, he begins to question the societal set up, the laws of the land, the constitution, the right given to other persons to infringe upon others' rights and so on. As soon as the questioning begins, many things get unravelled in the process. For e.g. why was the privacy intruded, what were the circumstances in which the privacy was intruded and so on.

In order to analyse whether  sting operation really an invasion on privacy, we need to consider multiple view points.

Let us first take case of a media which conducts a sting operation on a corrupt politician. Say a politician is engaging himself or herself in some money bargaining. This bargain is unethical. This is horse trading of MLAs to be inducted in his own party. This got caught in the camera. The sting operation was conducted by some news media channel. This was finally aired in the media through TV. The politician who was engaging in unscrupulous activities was defamed within a minute. Here in this case, we may discuss and debate that the politician privacy was invaded. But we need to look at the larger picture here. Even if the privacy was invaded, he was absolutely unethical. So sting operation is not an invasion on privacy if it concerns larger societal interests. If he would have been dealing with absolutely personal affairs, then such sting operation would be an invasion on privacy.

There are multiple examples from the historical past when such “sting operations” were conducted. If we go back to the period of Mauryas in 3^rd century BC, then our mind raises questions whether such sting operations were common in that period.

That is why I have inserted the word sting operation in quotes, because the method of conducting the sting operation was different. Today we conduct with all new technologies. That day, they were conducted with the spies. It would be absurd to think of any technology that would be used in conducting such operations. Samrat Ashoka, the great king of those times, would then take action based on the feedback of such spies. If the vicitims of such “sting operation” were found to be unethical, he would be brutally slaughtered. Such was the dire consequences in those times. But in 21^st century, atleast he deserves a fair trial in the court of law. There is no media trial. Hence, there is absolutely no invasion on privacy of individuals, if the sting operation is conducted in the interests of society. That is why I gave the example of Mauryans to prove the fact that such sting operations need to be supported even if there is an invasion on privacy.

But often, it is seen that when there is such operation by any media or some other civil society activists, the victim is not guilty. He or she tries to defend himself or herself. Moreover, victim tries to save himself under the cloak of Art 21; Right to Life which is guaranteed by the constitution of India. Victim chooses Right to life itself; because this right automatically gives the victim right to privacy. However, this should be no defence if the victim engages himself/herself in such malpractices. This has been also confirmed by the SC judgements.

Sting Operation is common not only in India but also in international arena. The politics of developed country has its own set of challenges as opposed to developing countries like India. In such cases, media is better tool to strengthen the polity. For e.g. US, UK, Japan or other industrialised countries of G7 have a very vigilant media. The media does not hesitate to report a full story of any such unscrupulous activities- whether it is print media or digital media. In such cases, sting operation is a better tool to control corruption and anarchy. In such countries, democracy is further strengthened by such sting operation even if there is invasion of privacy.

Sting operation, as an idea to control malpractices has been often displayed in sci-fi movies. And the idea of invasion on privacy of individuals is rarely emphasized in such movies if you have seen any of them. This itself tells us that such sting operations are definitely a more powerful concept than “invasion on privacy”. Only the motive should be fine. It should be ethical .

Ethical media will never invade privacy. Neither state will do. Because most of the countries are bound by the their constitution and laws. For India, it is the lengthiest one of all. However, nowhere it is mentioned that Sting operation is legal. Neither it has been mentioned in any legislation that sting operation will bring invasion on privacy. It is only interpretation of some of the provisions of the constitution for e.g. Art 21 i.e. Right to life is interpreted in different ways by the victims. It is then corrected by the custodian of the constitution i.e. Supreme court.

Supreme court can only restrict itself to judicial review or writs mentioned in the constitution for infringement of fundamental rights. The debate of Sting operation vs invasion on privacy can be properly taken up by the Supreme court or High courts within their jurisdiction. But how about the idea of a media regulator to oversee such conflicts? If there is some regulator to control such conflicts in the first place, the gravity of the situation can be controlled. The regulator will then provide some guidelines concerning sting operation. The guidelines will have sense of ethics. By following those, sting operation can be made ethical without hurting anyone’s genuine privacy.

If there is sting operation on someone and the victim is found to be innocent, then that is an invasion on privacy for sure. Because anything that gets aired on TV becomes irrevocable. So, the sting operation should be conducted only after solid base of facts and evidence against the victim.

As long as, the intention of the media is congruent with the societal interests, sting operation is not an “invasion on privacy”. In fact this is dichotomy.