The Supreme Court dismissed TV Today Network's plea challenging a Delhi High Court order, affirming that media organisations are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that media cannot claim immunity from High Court oversight by denying it performs a public function. The ruling confirms that when a private entity discharges a public function, constitutional courts retain jurisdiction over it. This settles a key question on the horizontal reach of writ jurisdiction beyond purely state actors.

Article 226 grants High Courts power to issue writs not just against the State under Article 12, but against 'any person or authority' performing a public function or public duty. This is a crucial distinction from Article 32, which is narrower in scope.

The foundational principle is that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to private bodies when they perform functions that are public in nature — functions that would otherwise be performed by the state or that affect citizens' rights significantly. Courts have applied this in cases involving universities, clubs, stock exchanges, and now media organisations.

The test the court applies is the 'public function test': Does the body perform a function that is public in character, even if the body itself is private? The entity's legal character (private company vs. statutory body) is secondary; what matters is the nature of the function.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this reinforces the principle from earlier rulings like Praga Tools v. C.V. Imanual (1969) and Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005). Media, by disseminating information to the public and shaping public discourse, discharges a function with public consequences — making it subject to constitutional court review under Article 226, even if it is not 'State' under Article 12.