Right to information

The case of Nirmala, the woman in Chandigarh who wants to rent her womb in order to support her family, draws attention to the speed with w...

The case of Nirmala, the woman in Chandigarh who wants to rent her womb in order to support her family, draws attention to the speed with which Indian society and law are falling behind events. Logically, defamation is not a possibility in this case. Nirmala is simply hiring herself out for a biological process. It is no different from consenting to free experimental therapy, something that a lot of patients with rare diseases regularly do.

They rent themselves out for a medical evaluation to an institute and the waiver on medical costs constitutes a `fee’. Nirmala’s case is no different, except that she has rented herself to individuals and not an institution. This being so, her plea that the courts recognise the rights of the child is worthy of attention. The courts do have a lot of catching-up to do.

As she herself has pointed out, the defamation has been done by the media, which has blown the facts out of all proportion. The mainstream publications are certainly to blame for not having been the voice of reason. The smaller papers, as always, must be far more culpable, having capitalised on antediluvian prejudices to serve up a juicy story. The small presses are always far more adventurous than the mainstream, because they are less likely to be called to account. It might be recalled that it was a report in a local publication in Madhya Pradesh that sparked off the embarrassing and pointless furore over M.F. Husain’s paintings. This is another area where the courts will have to start exercising their minds because, with governments set to formalise the right to information, there will be much debate on this issue.

Story continues below this ad

The right will soon begin to be demanded in areas other than government. And given the proclivities of the media, the courts may have to decide where the right to information ends and the right to be titillated begins, and whether the right to privacy has any place in this scheme of things at all. Of course, there are answers for all such questions in the experiences of other nations, which have been confronted with the issues years ago.

The intrusive media, in fact, has been an issue for well over two decades. But since there is a cultural element to these questions, we cannot hope to borrow freely from the solutions of others. We will have to address them on our own — though we can learn some good sense from the precedents. More important, the guidelines that are developed — whether self-imposed or legally binding — will have to be effective. There is a specific legal direction against the media using the names of rape victims. A cursory glance at any newspaper will show that it is observed more in the breach than in the observance. There is no ruling on AIDS patients, but common decency would seem to dictate that their names not be used unless they specifically wish it to be so. More often than not, however, their names are carried in the newspapers. The media will clearly have to be more sensitive and responsible in the future, and face up to the reality that there are certain aspects of life that most people would rather keep private.