Back
SUHAS C.SEN, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
R. Rajagopal Alias R. R. Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent
What is the scope of the right to privacy in relation to publication of a life-story or autobiography of a prisoner and its conflict with freedom of the press? What are the principles governing prior restraint and damages in relation to defamation, privacy, and government/public official conduct as established by this judgment? What are the exceptions to the right to privacy when information becomes part of public records or involves public officials and how does that affect publication of a prisoner’s life-story?
Key Points: - The right to privacy is implicit in Article 21 and protects personal intimacies; publication without consent can violate privacy, subject to certain case-by-case developments (!) (!) - Public officials have heightened protection; acts related to official duties enjoy protection unless publication is with reckless disregard for truth; verification by the press can be a defense (!) - There is no authority for the State or officials to impose prior restraints on publication; remedies are post-publication and defamation actions may follow (!) (!) (!) - Public records exception allows publication of matters becoming part of public records, with decency exceptions for female victims of sexual offenses (!) - Petition allowed: petitioners may publish the life-story to the extent it appears from public records without consent; exceeding that may invade privacy (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:- This petition raises a question concerning the freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country. It also raises the question as to the parameters of the right of the press to criticize and comment on the acts and conduct of public officials.
2. The first petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine `Nakkheeran, published from Madras, The second petitioner is the associate editor of the magazine. They are seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 32 of the Constitution, restraining the respondents, viz., (1) State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, Home Department, (2) Inspector General of Prisons, Madras and (3) Superintendent of Prisons (Central Prison), Salem, Tamil Nadu from taking any action as contemplated in the second respondents communication dated June 15, 1944 and further restraining them from interfering with the publication of the autobiography of the condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar, in their magazine. Certain other reliefs are prayed for in the writ petition but they are not pressed before us.
3. Shankar alias Gauri Shankar alias Auto Shan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
