Today, we're seeing the currency of journalism shift from truth to engagement, and nowhere is this more evident or volatile than in the marketplace of Indian celebrity journalism. In an era when the smartphone screen is a portal into the lives of the rich and famous, that portal's glass is growing foggy with the breath of gawkers. The Indian paparazzi tradition, once a minor aspect of film journalism attached to red carpets and premiere nights, has grown into a 24/7 surveillance ecosystem. Partly because of the persistent appetite for Instagram Reels and YouTube shorts, and partly because of feeds that depend on clicks and news aggregators, the definition of "news" now includes the unsurprising, the private, and, perhaps most alarmingly, the made-up.

The boundary between reporting and privacy has not just become fuzzy; in many instances, it has been completely erased. When a celebrity's experience of grief, a private medical diagnosis, or simply a quiet moment on a balcony becomes a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder, or media outlet with the shiniest ad revenue, we are required to ask a difficult question: Has the Indian media lost its moral compass?

The argument of this new wave of entertainment journalism is stern but obvious: When privacy is turned into content, empathy is disregarded. The relentless pursuit of the "exclusive" has incentivised a market for dignity as the first victim. From the disgusting made-up death stories to the illegal telephoto images of private vacations, the industry lives in a hierarchy of invasion. To put the depths of this rot into perspective, we should examine the range of this coverage, starting not with frivolity, but with the most egregious of ethical collapse: the made-up death story.

Dharmendra’s Death Hoax and the Death of Empathy
No transgression can be more heinous than taking away a human being's life for a headline. The recent death hoax of the legendary actor Dharmendra marks the lowest point in Indian celebrity reporting. At this moment, the obsession with "breaking news" crossed the rudimentary boundaries of humanity.

The rumour stemmed from a nondescript social media post that, within minutes, was circulated virally by sections of the digital press and YouTube channels looking for anything to go viral. It took less than an hour for the "news" of the veteran actor's death to trend online and dominate the news cycle. This was not merely an error; it was a catastrophic breakdown of the verification process. In the race for first place, news outlets neglected the most basic rules of journalism by failing to verify facts. The fallout of the misinformation was instantaneous and visceral. For the Deol family, this senseless digital frenzy was many things, but it was most definitely not a fun/entertaining experience; it was mental harassment.

The culmination of the unfolding events occurred when Sunny Deol, a man who has undoubtedly built a reputation for being unflappable, was obliged to engage with the media. His response, a loud rebuke of the press, his emotion raw and palpable, was not only the ire of a star but the distress of a son defending his father's honour. Accounts and videos from that moment capture a family pushed to the edge of composure by the readily accepted cruelty of internet-human traffic.

Another instance, during the success or the days that followed, drew out the absurd irony of the incident. There was a video of some adoring fan, fully enacting the same insanity as what accompanied the news cycle, who allegedly presented the casualty to the news anchor, who, in absentia, pitched the same indifference to those gathered in a loved one's vigil, but actually did it to another human being. This public expression showed from generational exposure, the obliviousness to the distortion being wrought. Here we see the looking-glass distortion of life: a hall of mirrors where a legend's death suffers from meme-ication without thought or deduction, without the adequacy needed, in the opportunity.

According to Dainik Jagran, the wider Bollywood fraternity criticised the paparazzi and media platforms for providing this “insensitive” reporting. The issue was not just an isolated incident with Dharmendra; it is a symptom of a deeper sickness – the concept that a celebrity’s life, and even death, is then newsworthy and open to speculation. When a media platform publishes the death of a living icon to gain likes, it does not just kill the truth; it kills the trust between the story's subject and the storyteller. This deceit is the darkest anchor of our scale—a moment where the camera lens was not just invasive, but gave the impression of burial to the living.

The Paparazzi Chase That Turned Deadly: The Shadow of Princess Diana
To appreciate the implications of the unchecked paparazzi culture, it is essential to look beyond India’s borders, to the tragedy that changed the understanding of celebrity culture - the death of Princess Diana. While this isn’t an Indian example, the events hang over the streets of Mumbai like a ghost- a dreadful reminder of what occurs when the hunt takes over humanity and safety.

The night that Princess Diana lost her life in Paris should not have been the spectacle it became. The flash bulbs did not capture a fleeting moment; they precipitated a disaster. The continuous endeavour to follow Diana was fueled by an industry that has historically exchanged copious amounts of money for "unguarded" moments. The motorcycle-riding photographers have long ceased being journalists; they are now hunters, and Diana was their quarry. The unfortunate collision on that fateful night was the terrifying culmination of years of aggressive, invasive surveillance.

In the aftermath, there was a public pause, a moment of reflection in which there was collective acknowledgement that the lust and voyeurism of the public was the aforementioned blood to some degree. A chastened world turned its attention to examining international media laws, and the "right to privacy" became part of an international, global dialogue.

That said, regardless of where paparazzi culture originated, one has to wonder where India is today, as the current state of Indian paparazzi culture begs the same question about somewhat ineffective connections. As noted in Naluda Magazine's exposé on the tragedy of celebrity photographs, the rest of the chase—the motorcycles, the blocking cars, the idiotic flashes that blind everybody involved—lives on in Mumbai. We see the same pre-common repulsion of "perfect shot" being prioritised over safety when photographers chase Aryan Khan's or Rhea Chakraborty's cars during legal troubles. As Diana's death and the Dharmendra Hoax indicate, the one produced physical death—no question—and the other produced social death, but one still operates out of any predator's instinct.

Deepika Padukone and the TOI Cleavage Controversy: Objectification as Journalism
Shifting from death hoaxes as an existential threat to the violation of dignity, we find ourselves at the infamous Times of India(TOI) instance involving Deepika Padukone, which sits at the middle of our "dark to light" continuum. Although the TOI incident did not pose physical danger to anyone, it still constituted a violent violation of bodily autonomy, and even more troubling, institutionalised sexism.

The TOI incident began with a tweet from the outlet's handle featuring a zoomed-in photograph of the actress's neckline, taken from an aerial top-down perspective. The tweet included a crass comment to the effect of the actress's 'cleavage'. Nothing implied a fashion critique; only voyeurism masked as a news publication.

Deepika's response was immediate and scorched earth. She tweeted, "YES! I am a Woman. I have breasts AND a cleavage! You got a problem!!?" This was a watershed moment; for decades, various actresses have been expected to smile through objectification and to accept the "male gaze" as part of being popular and/or famous. Deepika said no.

The media house's original defence made this episode particularly dark. They did not apologise, but instead defended the story, saying they were "complimenting" her. This gaslighting revealed a complete lack of understanding of consent and the difference between a red-carpet appearance and a predatory camera angle.

As Zareen Khan said in her interview about the objectification of female celebrities, we can see that it is an issue everywhere and can be described as a "system". The lens of the camera, in India at least, seems so much more about undressing than recording. The incident with TOI proved again that the premier country's most premier newspapers were immune from turf politics and gutter tabloid voyeurism, which reduced a top-tier artist to click-through rates for body parts.

Katrina Kaif’s Ibiza Pictures Leak: The Telephoto Intrusion
At the less invasive end of the scale, we have theft of private intimacy: the leak of vacation photographs of Katrina Kaif and Ranbir Kapoor in Ibiza. This was neither public nor on a film set. This was a private holiday on a beach in Spain, thousands of miles away from the jurisdiction of the Indian paparazzi—or so they would have thought.

The photos taken of them in swimwear found their way to the front pages of Indian newspapers. The quality of the photographs, grainy and taken from a distance, gave away the method; they had been taken using long lens photography, likely by a freelancer concealing himself in the distance, and had been sold to Indian outlets.

Kaif (the consummate private person) broke her silence with an impassioned open letter to the media, stating, “Private moments are private,” and appealing to the industry to recognise the distinction. You could hear the heartbreak in her voice, not from the photographer who captured their stolen, private, intimate moment of leisure, but from the shock that her private moments were being turned into enlightening fodder for the Indian media.

This incident exemplifies a particular kind of paparazzi overreach: a calculator of situational or geographical limitations. In Times of India articles about Varun Dhawan and Ranbir Kapoor's posted set pics from their film, reporters shared a sentiment that the camera intrudes into celebrities' sacred spaces. This leak from Ibiza underlined the horrifying reality that, for an Indian celebrity, there is such a thing as "off the clock." If you are in sight, you are in content.

Mahira Khan & Ranbir Smoking Photos: Moral Policing via Lens
The incident involving photos of Pakistani actress Mahira Khan and Ranbir Kapoor smoking on a street in New York depicts a distinct convergence of privacy invasion and the phenomenon of moral policing. Like the Ibiza incident, these were long-lens captures taken without the subjects' consent. However, there were also implications of sociocultural toxicity that are specific to South Asia that accompanied the incident when these images went viral.

When the images went viral, the story did not begin to address the privacy violation. Instead, the focus shifted predominantly to a brutal shaming of Mahira Khan, with trolls and tabloids focusing on her outfit (a white backless dress) and her smoking, while Ranbir Kapoor, standing beside her, doing the same, was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

This incident illustrates how paparazzi content is often used as ammunition for character assassination. The invasion of privacy was the vehicle; the weapon was misogyny. As noted in Times of India features on the curious case of celebs and privacy, the "scoop" here wasn't that two actors were hanging out; the scoop was the opportunity to judge a woman for her personal choices. Both actors eventually had to issue clarifications that they were friends, a humiliating requirement forced upon them by a stolen photograph. It showcased that the dark side of coverage isn't just about taking the photo; it's about the narrative of shame constructed around it.

The Katrina–Vicky Wedding Frenzy: The Absurdity of Obsession
Finally, we reach the "lightest" end of our spectrum. By lightest, I do not mean acceptable; instead, it was more farce than tragedy. The coverage of Katrina Kaif and Vicky Kaushal's wedding in Rajasthan was a masterclass in the obsessive.

This was not journalism; this was a siege. Reportedly, media outlets were trying to send drones to capture images of the bride and groom for their lead stories. The couple instituted a draconian "No NDA, No Phone" policy for guests—no photographs were allowed, and even camera lenses were covered with stickers to prevent leaks.

The absurdity escalated into hilarity and despair as news channels reported on the delivery of vegetables to the ceremony site and tracked various vehicles. Fans and reporters examined flight manifests to follow the couple's travels, and virtually camped out at the airport.

Though there were no injuries (as was the case with Diana) and no report of death (as with Dharmendra), the wedding coverage unwittingly highlighted the emptiness of our entertainment news cycle. As NDTV reported, once the cameras got too close, the celebration turned into a military operation. That two people had to effectively barricade themselves to get married without being livestreamed is a damning indictment of the entitlement the Indian media infers from celebrity happiness. It made abundantly clear that in India, a celebrity wedding is a personal event that is still treated more like a national sporting event, with a front-row seat apparently the minimum price of admission.

Why Does Paparazzi Culture Keep Getting Darker?
Why has the situation deteriorated from red-carpet photos to death hoaxes and drone surveillance? The answer lies in the convergence of technology, economics, and psychology.

The Economics of the Click
Outrage and exclusivity earn more revenue than truth in the digital economy. A respectful photo of a celebrity, shaken or waving, earns less ad revenue than a "scandalous" ripped, zoomed-in shot, or a rumour that the celebrity was "catching a flight." As described in Reputation Today’s recent analysis of the dark side of Bollywood PR, there is a symbiotic (although toxic relationship between visibility and viability. Shockingly, the paparazzi get access to this unfiltered content without going through the PR gatekeepers, purely for clickbait and algorithms that favour it.

The Algorithm of Voyeurism
Social media platforms - including Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok - are designed to produce high-engagement entertainment through video evidence. Engagement is immediate, especially if it is a video capturing a celebrity losing their cool or involves craziness (like getting a video of a celebrity in the process of becoming normal - i.e., a "spotted" video of a star walking into a clinic at a deserted airport). One example (Reddit thread titled 'Paparazzi is Dirty Business') explains how the fans themselves stoke this fire, and so even though it disgusts us and we rail against it, we still hit "click". We enjoy high engagement content with voyeurism, by clicking, commenting, and sharing the video(s) or the news article.

Lack of Regulation
In India, because there are no laws or restrictions on photographing individuals in private spaces (as is essentially the case in the West), India operates in a grey area. The Lexology articles exploring the right to privacy conveyed that public figures do not have as strong a protection against being photographed in public in India, and that the concept of "public interest" is often used to justify invasive practices.

24/7 beast
The nature of 24-hour news channels and instantaneous social media pages, and the demands they place, means the beast has to be fed constantly. There are not enough factual, newsworthy stories to fill the airtime, so instead we have predictable, staged stories, or even mundane activities (such as running to the gym or leaving an airport) reported as "news."

The Emotional Cost to Celebrities
The human cost of this relentless surveillance is often ignored. We see the glamour, but we rarely see the anxiety.

Safety and Panic
Alia Bhatt's experience, where she was photographed sitting in her living room by two photographers from a building next door, is a prime example. T2 Online reported that she blasted the media for this "gross invasion," tagging the Mumbai Police in the tweet. It is an affront; it destroys the comfort and security one should feel while in their home.

The Parenting Nightmare
The instinct to protect one's children is undoubtedly the strongest. Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma, as well as Ranbir and Alia, who have often had to engage in disputes to keep their children's faces off social media, continue to face attempts by photographers to push this boundary. The Times of India's coverage of this topic, "No Pictures Please," draws attention to the issue, creating a world where new parents are terrified to take their kids to the park.

The Rage Response
When celebrities are upset, they are labelled as "arrogant." However, as the India TV News clip showed, celebs losing it (with Jaya Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, and others) usually happens after being extremely provoked into taking action. Jaya Bachchan, for instance, who consistently scolds the paparazzi, is often meme'd, but she is definitely annoyed by people treating her family like zoo exhibits. For example, Preity Zinta (as shown on NDTV) went off when a photographer became aggressive and nearly created a dangerous situation, questioning whether their work lacked basic manners. Even the usually low-key Jr NTR lost his cool when he was followed inside a hotel (according to Bollywood Shaadis) and screamed for the paps to back off.

The "Down to Earth" Trap
According to Hindustan Times, actor Gulshan Devaiah made a jest about the "down-to-earth" storyline. The paparazzi will portray celebrities doing the most mundane things (buying vegetables, sitting in an auto) as otherworldly, and, in many ways, further dehumanise them by using that terminology. That terminology only reveals their superficial de facto inception, i.e. that this person is a different species from you; their vision renders it only "ok" for them to hunt them.

What Needs to Change: A Call for Boundaries
The current trajectory is unsustainable. To restore sanity to entertainment journalism, a multi-pronged approach is necessary.

A Paparazzi Code of Conduct
There must be an internal policing system within this industry, a form of self-regulation that has been needed for many, many years. It won't be easy, but the industry must adopt clear, defined lines that can't be crossed. For example, no lurking around hospitals. No covering funerals or memorials unless the family invited the coverage. No photographing children unless the parent is informed, and no long lens photography into someone's private residence or vacation home. It is irrelevant how famous a person is, whether there is a scandal associated with them, or their public persona.

Create enforceable rules, penalties, and peer oversight to restore some dignity, mental health protection, and public trust in entertainment journalism.

Legal Recourse
As Naik Naik and other legal commentators have pointed out, India needs to strengthen its privacy laws to protect the public from invasion of privacy. A legal distinction should be made between public interest and the interest of the public. Public interest would cover instances in which photographs or reports reveal wrongdoing, such as a celebrity committing a crime or engaging in corruption. The public interest would be instances in which articles and images served only to satisfy curiosity, such as a private vacation or swimsuit photo.

Platform Responsibility
Social media sites like Instagram and YouTube need to be more accountable regarding hosting and promoting harassing or invasive content. It is inappropriate to expose a video of a celebrity clearly in distress, visually asking nearby photographers or bystanders to stop recording, and then amplify it across the platform. This video should trigger a flag, as it is common online harassment and should be removed or moderated in accordance with community standards. Social networks also need to create better procedures with reporting tools and detection/monitoring. The goal of these tools and methods is to ensure our digital landscape does not further encourage public intrusion or aggravate emotional distress for entertainment purposes.

The Role of the Stars
When celebrities publicly call out intrusive media organisations and people, like Alia Bhatt, Deepika Padukone, and Jaya Bachchan did, it displays that there can be power in accountability as a public spectator. Accountable audiences not only embarrass irresponsible organisations, but also foster public conversation about boundaries and the right to consent as a public figure or, possibly, as a private figure. The article, via MSN, with Deepika firmly warning a fan who recorded her at the airport, sent a message that privacy can be asserted in real time, creating new norms around the assumption that such an act is acceptable behaviour. These several examples again remind the audience and media consumer that even public figures are entitled to dignity and physical space.

Public Complicity
Public complicity is key in supporting media intrusion, and that is a necessary mindset shift. The audience cannot complain about privacy invasions when they then drive demand for leaked or intrusive content. Every click, view, and share of leaked or intrusive content supports bad behaviour and creates more space for violations. Real change starts with conscious consumption and a refusal to engage in behaviour that is clearly non-consensual. The public can help shift values in the media space by valuing consent over interested curiosity – while also supporting better journalism that values privacy and dignity for individuals and less intrusive journalism overall.

The Takeaway
The distance separating the grotesque fabrication of the Dharmendra death hoax from the absurd surveillance of a drone spying on a wedding might be considerable. Still, both are undoubtedly fruit from the same poisonous tree. Both of these behaviours arise from a culture that, over time, has dismantled the distinction and overall boundary between our public persona and private reality, while completely forgetting that the people on our screens are fundamentally people. Whether you are burying the living for a headline or breaching a fortress for a photograph, the motivation is the same: it's the utter and complete commodification of human existence.

Thus, the "dark side" of celebrity coverage isn't just criticism of the paparazzi; it is an indictment of ourselves. It is indicative of a society that demands complete access to strangers' lives by merging admiration with ownership. We have created a digital market where the disruption of privacy is the supply for our demand for constant engagement. But history tells us that there is a significant cost associated with this craving. As the chilling legacy of Princess Diana taught the world, and as we can now relearn from the harrowing images of the Deol family, there is a cost associated with unlimited access - typically within the currency of safety, mental peace, and human dignity.