SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of T.N. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petition (C) No. 422 of 1994
Decided on 7-10-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocates for Respondents.
Constitution Of India1950 – Article32 - Indian Penal Code1860 - Section 499 and 500 - Superintendent - Prisoners interest petitioner is editor printer and publisher of Tamil weekly magazine published from Madras second petitioner is associate editor of magazine y are seeking issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction Constitution restraining respondents State Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary Home Department Inspector General of Prisons Madras Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison Salem Tamil Nadu from taking any action as contemplated in second respondents communication and further restraining from interfering with publication of autobiography of condemned prisoner Auto Shankar in magazine Certain or reliefs are prayed for in writ petition but y are not pressed before us - Shankar alias Auto Shankar was charged and tried for as many six murders He was convicted and sentenced to death by learned Sessions Judge which was confirmed -Held, Rule above indeed this is not exception but an independent rule In case of public officials it is obvious right privacy or for that matter remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official duties This so even where publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true unless official establishes that publication was made (by defendant with reckless disregard for truth In such a case it would be enough for dependant (member of press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true Of course where publications is proved to be false and actuated by malice personal animosity defendant would have and would be liable for damages It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to discharge his duties public official enjoys same protection as any or citizen as explained above It needs no reiteration that judiciary which is protected by power to punish for contempt of Court and Parliament and Legislatures protected as privileges are by Articles respectively of Constitution of India represent exceptions to this rule - Principles above mentioned are only broad principles y are exhaustive nor all-comprehending; indeed no such enunciation is possible or advisable As rightly pointed out by Maw J this right has to go through case-by-case development concepts dealt with herein are still in process of evolution – Petition allowed
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 Shankar was charged and tried for as many as six murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Chenglepat on May 31, 1991 which was confirmed by the Madras High Court on July 17, 1992. His appeal to this court was dismissed on April 5, 1994. It is stated that his mercy petition to the President of India is pending consideration.
4. The petitioners have come forward with the following case: Auto Shankar wrote his autobiography running into 300 pages while confined in Chenglepat sub jail during the year, 1991. The autobiography was handed over by him to his wife, Smt. Jagdishwari, with the knowledge and approval of the jail authorities, for being delivered to his advocate, Sri Chandrasekharan. The prisoner requested his advocate to ensure that his autobiography is published in the petitioners magazine, `Nakkheeran. The petitioners agreed to the same. Auto Shankar affirmed his desire in several letters written to his advocate and the first petitioner. The autobiography sets out the close nexus between the prisoner and several IAS, IPS and other officers, some of whom were indeed his partners in several crimes. The presence of several such officers at the house warming ceremony of Auto Shankars house is proved by the video cassette and several photographs taken on the occasion. Before commencing the serial publication of the autobiography in their magazine, the petitioners announced in the Issue dated May 21, 1994 that very soon the magazine would be coming out with the sensational life history of Auto Shankar. This announcement sent shock waves among several police and prison officials who were afraid that their links with the condemned prisoner would be exposed. They forced the said prisoner, by applying third degree methods, to write letters addressed to the second respondent (Inspector General of Prisons) and the first petitioner requesting that his life-story should not be published in the magazine. Certain correspondence ensued between the petitioners and the prison authorities in this connection. Ultimately, the Inspector General of Prisons (R-2) wrote the impugned letter dated June 15, 1994 to the first petitioner. The letter states that the petitioners assertion the Auto Shankar had written his autobiography while confined in jail in the year 1991 is false. It is equally false that the said autobiography was handed over by the said prisoner to his wife with the knowledge and approval of the prison authorities. The prisoner has himself denied the writing of any such book. It is equally false that any power of attorney was executed by the said prisoner in favour of his advocate, Sri Chandrasekharan in connection with the publication of the alleged book. If a prisoner has to execute a power of attorney in favour of anot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.