2009 Supreme(Mad) 3943

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
A. Raja & Another
Versus
P. Srinivasan Publisher and Printer of Junior Vikatan Vasan Publications Private Limited & Others
OSA Nos.230 of 2009 & 231 of 2009 & MP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2009 in OSA 230 of 2009 & MP Nos.2 & 3 of 2009 in OSA 231 of 2009
Decided on: 01-10-2009

Ratios:
a. The press can, after reasonable verification, publicly comment or criticize the conduct of a person connected to his public office or life and not his private life or his family members without his or her consent.
b. Publishing the photograph of a child of a public figure in an article criticizing the public conduct of such person amounts to violation of the right of the Child.
c. Press freedom does not extend to the publication of private life of a public figure.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India-Art.19, 21-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)-O.39 R.1-Torts-Freedom of speech-Right to reputation-Press freedom-Defamation-Right to privacy-Child-Right of child-Injunction-Cost-Damages-1st appellant is a central minister and the 2nd appellant is his wife-The respondents published news article, caricatures and also photographs of the appellants and their child regularly with allegations imputing irregularity in allocation of spectrum and corruption-Appellants filed suit claiming damages and also prayed for an order of interim injunction against the respondents from publishing news about them or their child and also their photos and caricatures-Single judge dismissed the injunction petition with cost-Appellants preferred appeal and contended that their right to reputation and privacy are violated by the alleged articles and the right of their child is also violated-Respondents contended that as the 1st appellant is a public figure, his conduct can be subject to public scrutiny and they have right to publish the articles criticizing him and also publish the photographs-Held, The press is having the right to publish the news commenting the public conduct of the 1st appellant and it cannot be injuncted by the Courts-2nd appellant is not a public figure and she is entitled to protect her privacy and U.N.O. convention on Child also protects the right of child to protect his privacy and reputation-The respondents were injuncted from publishing any news item regarding the 2nd appellant and her child without getting clarification from them and about the private life of the 1st appellant also without getting clarification from them-As the appellants prima facie feel that their rights are violated and entitled to claim damages, imposition of cost while dismissing the interim application is not warranted and it was set aside-Appeals were allowed to this extent.

       (B) Constitution of India-Art.19, 21-Torts-Freedom of speech-Right to reputation-Press freedom-Defamation-Right to privacy-Child-Right of child-The press can, after reasonable verification, publicly comment or criticize the conduct of a person connected to his public office or life and not his private life or his family members without his or her consent.

       There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit or to impose a prior restraint upon the press or media and when a person is holding a public office, the comments and criticisms cannot be avoided since it is a necessary corollary. If such criticisms are attempted to be avoided, it would amount to political censorship. The acts done by a person in public life could be categorized as private and public. The acts and conduct of a person who holds office in Government and responsible for public administration are always open to criticism. When a publication is made in the press commenting or criticising the acts and conduct of a person which is connected to his public office and life, it cannot be made a condition that a prior verification of the facts should be done. But it would suffice if the media or the press has acted after a reasonable verification. But, at the same time, it should not be forgotten that the Apex Court in the case reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632 had made it clear that every citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters and no one can publish anything in reference to the above matters without his or her consent whether laudatory or critical. Para 15

       (C) Constitution of India-Art.19, 21-Freedom of speech-Right to reputation-Press freedom-Defamation-Right to privacy-Child-Right of child--Publishing the photograph of a child of a public figure in an article criticizing the public conduct of such person amounts to violation of the right of the Child.

       The UN Convention on the rights of the child 1989 has clearly adumbrated the rights of the child namely the right to preserve the identity, nationality and the family relations. The respondents had no explanation to offer why and under what circumstances, they published the photograph of the minor child. ……… It is an act of infringement of the right of the child by exposing the identity and the family relationship of the first appellant and thus, inserting the photograph cannot but be termed as an abuse. Para 16

       (D) Constitution of India-Art.19, 21-Freedom of speech-Right to reputation-Press freedom-Defamation-Right to privacy-Child-Right of child-Press freedom does not extend to the publication of private life of a public figure.

       The respondents cannot be allowed to take shelter under the Doctrine of Freedom of Press, and the same cannot also be extended to publishing exclusively private affairs of the appellants calling it as connected to or concerned with public life. Para 20