By Kavita Mistry 
When news broke that actor Dharmendra had been hospitalised at Mumbai’s Breach Candy Hospital, the focus was on his health and recovery. What was not expected was how quickly a deeply private moment would become public entertainment. An ICU video showing the 89-year-old actor in a vulnerable state, surrounded by family, was secretly recorded and leaked. The hospital staff member responsible was arrested, yet the damage had already been done.
Read more: Dharmendra Isn’t Dead, But Journalism Might Be: The Curious Case Of Media Hoaxes
This incident brings into sharp relief the tension between celebrity and privacy. For public figures like Dharmendra, who have lived decades in the public eye, there remains no clear boundary between the persona and the person. Filmmakers and journalists have long recognised the mistake of reducing an actor to a product of their image. Still, when the cameras move into the ICU, the spectacle overrides the person.
Dharmendra’s family issued requests for privacy following his discharge, saying he’ll recover at home and asking the media and the public to stop speculation. But the leak of the video revealed the extent to which access has shifted — from the documentarians and fans outside the gates to those inside the hospital ward with a camera in their pocket. The footage swiftly became content for sharing and commenting.
Dharmendra case: What it means for public figures to have a private life
In discussing what it means to have a private life for a public figure, we must recognise that not all moments should be filtered into public consumption. The difference between a public announcement of recovery and a private stream of consciousness from a hospital bed is vast. One honours the individual’s dignity, the other reduces it. When staff films without consent, and the video spreads, the violation is complete. It’s not just about paparazzi in the driveway; it is about cameras in the room when healing is supposed to happen in rest.
For the industry, the implications are broad. Celebrities often negotiate visibility; their careers rely on performance, yes, but also on boundaries. The Deol family’s reaction showed fatigue, not for the illness itself but for the permanence of waiting lenses. For fans, the psychological contract is that you can watch, admire, applaud — but not infiltrate. When that contract is breached you feel a share of shame, even if the story is not about you.
In a time of social media where “Breaking” can mean “breach,” the demand for content often trumps burden of ethics. A single clip from Dharmendra’s bed became viewed by thousands before the family had processed it themselves. The viewer becomes voyeurs, the platform becomes runway for the personal.
What is to be done? First, institutions like hospitals and media outlets need robust policy. Recording patients without consent is an ethical and legal violation. Second, audiences must pause and question their appetite. A video might go viral, but that does not make it right. Ships of empathy can still sail. When the Deol family asked for privacy, they were asserting that public life does not mean perpetual exposure.
Third, the celebrities themselves benefit from drawing lines. Defining what is shared and what remains off-camera becomes part of the modern star’s strategy. Dharmendra’s team drew that line when the leak happened, calling for respect and rest. The clarity of their statement, “Please give us privacy”, should disrupt the cycle of “content at any cost.”
Ultimately, what this episode shows us is that fame may invite cameras, but it cannot invite all cameras. A hospital bed should not serve as a backdrop for trending clips. A family’s grief or fear should not be edited into a viral moment. Celebrities, though public figures, deserve privacy in moments of vulnerability. When we blur the line, we trade empathy for engagement, dignity for display.
For Dharmendra, a towering figure in Indian cinema, the intrusion was in the violation of trust. He did not sign up for a hospital live-stream. He signed up for movies but photography does not equal love.
Public interest does not equal public right. We must refuse to see every private moment as public property. And perhaps, after this episode, the industry and audience will remember: even legends need their quiet backstage.