Loading

“Freedom of Press is an article of religion with us, holy by our Constitution, valid by four decades of freedom and indispensable to our future as a Nation”

Introduction:

The case of R. Rajgopal vs State of Tamil Nadu[1] is a landmark judgment on the freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy. The issue of the right to privacy is not a new concept rather an old concept. It is not the first-time privacy is being discussed with regards to Aadhar card it has been discussed in the famous landmark case of Kharak Singh vs State of UP & Ors[2] and further in the case of R. Rajgopal vs State of Tamil Nadu. In this case, the proposition that is raised is regarding the liberty of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the voters of this country. It additionally follows the discussion on the parameters of the right of the press to criticize and investigate the acts and conduct of public officers. It set down that the right to privacy is implicit the right to life and liberty absolute to a citizen beneath Article 21 of the Constitution. throughout that point freedom of speech and expression inundated the right to privacy. Therefore, it became necessary what were reasons set down by the Supreme court judges for permitting publication of the book and proclaimed the right to privacy came under article 21 of the constitution.

Facts

Petitioners include the editor, associate editor, printer, and publisher of a Tamil magazine, Nakkheeran. The respondents embrace the State of state, the officer of Prisons, and also the Superintendent of Prisons. The petitioners are sought-after to ban the respondents from meddling with the publication of an autobiography of a captive, auto Shanker, in Nakkheeran. Shanker was guilty of six murders and sentenced to death. whereas in jail, Shanker wrote his autobiography and expressed he would like that it be printed in the petitioners’ magazine. Before publication, Nakkheeran proclaimed the jail officers then forced Shanker to write to the magazine requesting that the autobiography not be printed. Petitioners then brought this action to stop the respondents from violating the magazine’s and also the prisoner’s Freedom of Expression. the choice created within the case was that the State cannot stop an article from getting printed only for the rationale that it’s going to cause defamation to the State. interference like this can be an unlawful and unreasonable prior restraint. The State’s sole recourse, therefore, would be to sue for defamation once the article has been published.

In a free democratic society, it’s almost too obvious to need stating that who holds office in government and who are liable for public administration should be receptive to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the foremost insidious and objectionable kind. A recent judgment of the Indian Supreme Court terminated that a public official cannot recover damages for libel for a calumniatory publication regarding his or her official conduct unless he or she will be able to prove that the publication was false and created with reckless disregard for the reality. it’s not necessary for a litigant to prove that the allegedly calumniatory statement was true – merely that he or she created a reasonable effort to verify the facts of the statement.

Publication without consent of something that concerns person’s personal life, whether or not truthful or not, can typically violate that person’s right to privacy and lay the muse for an action for damages unless the person has voluntarily placed him or herself within the prominence of the publication is predicated upon public records, as well as court records except wherever such records relate to the naming of victims of offenses like sexual assault. The petitioners so, had the right to publish while not consent those components of auto Shanker’s life story that appeared from public records however, if they revealed any data that went on the far side that supply, they will be to blame for breaching his right to privacy.

The respondents cannot take it upon themselves to institute proceedings to safeguard auto Shanker’s right to privacy within the absence of any proof that he requested or authorized them to try and do this. Public officers don’t have the right to bring an action for damages in defamation in reference to acts they perform within the discharge of their official duties unless they’ll prove that the publication is fake and was created by the defendant with ‘reckless disregard for the truth’

Major Premise

Article 19(1)(a) read with 19(2) guarantees every person the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression with some restrictions. The expression ‘freedom of press’ has not been utilized in Article 19 however it’s apprehended inside Article 19(1)(a). The expression means that freedom from interference from an authority which might have the impact of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers, magazines, etc. step by step liberal views and ideas started gaining additional importance.

Minor Premise

The right to privacy was not a fundamental right at the time of the case and it is also not a part of exceptions to 19(1)(a) given in 19(2).

Issue raised

1.Whether the state has a right to stop a book from publication because it may infringe on their right to privacy?

2.Whether freedom of speech and expression can be a reason to violate the right to privacy?

Obiter dicta

The case stated a mentioned right to privacy therefore aiding the method of it turning into a basic right. As per this case, the right to privacy is tacit a part of Art 21. It’s somewhat a right to be left alone. Everybody has and can, therefore, be allowed to undertake to safeguard their privacy and that of their family.

The court had organized that there was no express right to privacy however discussed that there are some aspects of this right within the constitution.

Ratio decidendi

The judges held that the book could be published by the publishers even without the authorization of Shankar or authorities as much as it appears in public records. They could not publish anything which is secret information, they could be held to violate the ‘right to privacy and be punished. The state cannot stop the publication but have every right to seek remedy if the above clause is harmed.

Judgment

In the mentioned case, Shankar had the liberty to get his story printed because it was not created with any mala fide intention and didn’t embody something false. The publication was solely wrapped to the extent that there was no violation of any official secrets.

The right to privacy, in 2018 may be a well-discussed idea. However, in the year of 1995, it had been not very well-acknowledged just in case laws or legislations. Privacy wasn’t a basic right then and thus this case acknowledged it. This was vital for this principle to develop.

Thus, the Supreme Court handled a conflict between the liberty of the press and also the right to privacy and held that the latter had acquired a Constitutional standing.

Critical Analysis

In the judgment, later the autobiography was published as it was, without any changes.

Omitted Facts

The court had not paid much heed to the fact of what might be the consequences if the book was released and may lead to defamation to the plaintiff. Though they may sue for defamation later, but the damage would already have been done.

Omitted Issue

The court had completely ignored the key issue of whether the book had been written by Shankar or not, whether it was bona fide and auto Shankar’s biography. This was important to understand to know the intention and calculate whether any defamation may occur due to the malice of the defendant or someone else.

Thus, I would conclude that I think the biography ought to solely have been published after removing the names of the police and jail authorities. although it had been expressed that there was no law to forestall the publication of the book and therefore the publishers can be sued later, still, the publication itself may lead to heaps of hurt. therefore, a judgment ought to be taken where a middle ground between the right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression could have been found.

All the previous cases addressing the right to privacy had taken honest reasoning by being attentive to the privacy principle however this case studied the principle in a very completely different manner. It allowed the primary publication of the alleged biography however warned that if they went on the far side that and revealed his chronicle, they will be incursive his right to privacy and can be responsible for the results in accordance with the law.

This case was determined before the enforcement of the ‘right to privacy’ as a basic right. If the case would have been determined nowadays, likely the judgment would have been a totally completely different one. Since it’s currently a fundamental right warranted by the constitution, it can’t be harmed in any approach as per Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. the main points of the jail authorities would return below the reach of privacy and it would have been the argument of the state.

In my opinion, the most important mistake created by the court was permitting the book to be revealed with no changes. The book had names of jail authorities and lots of intimate details concerning the jail facilities. Even supposing Shankar had written the book, there was no proof showing that everything written by Shankar was true and therefore the sole approach it may be proved was by the presence of Shankar. Though the court has allowed the State to appeal, once the book is revealed, even though the judgment was later reversed (which it was not), once the book had been revealed, names of the authorities who allegedly committed crimes are referred to as out and that they would be severely disrespected within the society. Moreover, material possession of such tortuous details of the prisons might greatly violate the protection of the prisons. If the court still needed to publish the book, they needed to have investigated to see if the cops talked concerning the book were involved in the crime.

It would be suggested that law reforms of privacy be strengthened. Right to privacy now a fundamental right still needs proper implementation. Also, freedom of speech and expression cannot be warranted for a defamatory statement or in cases where the true nature of the alleged facts is not known. This right cannot be denied, and it is rightfully given to the people however it must be controlled in situations to avoid it being misused.

However, the judgment was ideal in starting a discussion about the right to privacy and thus greatly aiding the process.  In the case of Phoolan Devi vs Shekhar Kapoor[3] which happened right after this landmark case, it was noticed that Phoolan Devi invoked her right to privacy for the restraining exhibition of the movie bandit queen. The movie was based on her life and she objected to the depiction of certain scenes depicting a sexual assault on her and various other instances where she was raped or murdering these were not mentioned by her in the book too. Thus, she sought for censuring those scenes which violated her right to privacy. As stated in the landmark case nothing could be presented which is ultra-vires or excessive than present which violates her fundamental right of privacy.

Conclusion

In keeping with its affirmation that freedom of expression is “one of the most essential bases of a democratic society”, the judgment has clearly showcased a proclivity for freedom of the press. However, as we know that no freedom is definite, India legislation must put restrictions on such freedoms and must apply contemporary standards rather than international standards in determining the limits.

This case was also important because it realized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and should be included within the ambit of article 21 of the constitution. Another thing that we learn from this judgment is that public figures cannot raise objections on something which violates their privacy, anything on public record can be published or showcased.

Thus, it can be said that this case became a landmark for both freedom of the press and the right to privacy realizing the importance of both. Lastly, if this case would have come up in the present day, the right to privacy would have won and the autobiography would have not published because living in such a data-centric world right to privacy is vital.


References:

[1] R. Rajagopal and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (07.10.1994 – SC): MANU/SC/0056/1995

[2] Kharak Singh v State of U P & Ors 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

[3] Phoolan Devi vs Shekhar Kapoor And Ors. 57 (1995) DLT 154, 1995 (32) DRJ 142


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *