Fundamental right of speech and expression includes freedom of press.

(Prayer: Appeal against the ad interim injunction order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 15.03.2006 in Original Application No.599 of 2003 in C.S.No.477 of 2003.)

Chief Justice:

The first appellant, R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal, is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of ‘Nakkheeran’, a bi-weekly magazine published from Chennai. The second appellant, A.Kamaraj is the Associate Editor of ‘Nakkheeran’. During the period from 01.04.2003 to 20.06.2003, the appellants had published certain articles in their magazine in relation to the first and the second respondents. The first respondent Selvi.J.Jayalalitha is the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. She is also the General Secretary of the political party, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). The second respondent Tmt.N. Sassikala is a close friend of the first respondent and is interested in the welfare of the first respondent. In all 24 publications made in 21 issues of ‘Nakkheeran’ are the subject matter of the present proceedings.

2. The respondents filed a suit for injunction and damages against the appellants in their capacity as Editor, Printer and Publisher and Associate Editor of ‘Nakkheeran’ respectively. In the plaint, it is stated that the first appellant was arrested by the police under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 on 12.04.2003 and has been detained in prison ever since. From the said date, the magazine ‘Nakkheeran’, which is being published as a bi-weekly on Tuesdays and Fridays of the week (now Thursdays and Sundays), has been carrying a vilification campaign against the respondents in their magazine by printing false and defamatory articles on the title page with banner headlines as well as on the cover page, apart from featuring the photographs of either the first or the second respondent or both. None of the articles published against the respondents has been found to be true or published in good faith after prior verification. In fact, the first appellant has always been indulging in character assassination of the respondents, and as a matter of fact, an earlier suit for damages filed by the respondents against the first appellant is pending in this Court.

3. It is stated that the respondents are protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live peacefully without being defamed with false and vituperative articles without any proof therefor whatsoever. There are enough legal precedents available to prevent the appellants from printing and publishing such defamatory articles and if at all there was something relating to the respondents which required to be published, the appellants may be directed to verify with the respondents the veracity of the material received by them apropos of the activities of the respondents. It is stated that freedom of press does not mean that the appellants can pick and choose persons out of personal or political animosity, or monetary inducements with the sole idea of defaming them. It is further stated in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the plaint as follows:

“20. The freedom of speech in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India cannot be taken to mean absolute freedom to say or write whatever a person chooses recklessly without regard to another person’s honour and reputation. The right guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be borne in mind, applies equally to every citizen. Every right correspondents to a duty to the other and is also to be judged. The right guaranteed is always a qualified one. Indeed, every right has got its own natural limitation. Holding a public position does not mean that one should be at the receiving end of attacks day-in-and-day-out nor it can be said that it is an appendage to that office.

21. It is not a question of mere ignorance about making vulgar criticisms and hurting abuses against the plaintiffs, but when the same is being ceaselessly done, beyond a reasonable period as a matter of right, the plaintiffs have no re