Article 21 of the Indian Constitution - Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
This Article is just about the Right of Privacy which is a part of Article 21
Right to privacy - In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., popularly known as "Auto Shanker case" the Supreme Court has expressly held the "right to privacy", or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, mother hood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. However, position may be differed if he voluntarily puts into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
This rule is subject to an exception that if any publication of such matters are based on public record including court record it will be unobjectionable. If a matter becomes a matter of public record the right to privacy no longer exists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. Again, an exception must be carved out of this rule in the interests of decency under Art 19(2) in the following cases, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnapping, addiction or a like offence should not further be subjected to indignity of her name and the incident being published in press or media.
The second exception is that the right to privacy or the remedy of action for damage is simply not available to public officials as long as the criticism concerns the discharge of their public duties; not even when the publication is based on untrue facts and statements unless the official can establish that the statement had been made with reckless disregard of truth. All that the alleged contemnor need to do is to prove that he has written after reasonable verification of facts.
The Court, however, held that the judiciary with its contempt powers and the legislature with its privileges stands on different footing.
In this case the editor and the associate editor of the Tamil Magazine "Nakkheeran" published from Madras moved the Supreme Court and asked for a writ-restraining government officials from interfering with their right to publish the autobiography of Auto Shanker who had been convicted for several murders and awarded capital punishment. Auto Shanker had written his autobiography in jail which depicted close relationship between the prisoner and several IAS, IPC and other officials, some of whom were partners in several crimes. The announcement by the Magazine that very soon a sensational life history of Auto Shanker would be published, created panic among several police officials that they might be exposed. They forced him by applying third degree method to write letter addressed to the Inspector General of Prisons that he had not written any such book and it should not be published. The I.G wrote the publisher that it was false and should not be published.
It is to be noted that the petitioners did not show that they were authorized to publish the book. The question for consideration was whether a citizen could prevent another for writing his autobiography. Secondly, does an authorized piece of writing infringe the citizen's right to privacy. Does the press have the right to publish an unauthorized account of a citizen's life. Thirdly, whether the Government could maintain an action for defamation or put restraint on press not to publish such materials against their officials or whether the officials themselves had the right to do so.
The Court held that the State or its officials have no authority in law to impose prior restraint on publication of defamatory matter. The public officials can take action only after publication if it is found to be false.
Right to privacy available to a woman of easy virtues - In State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain, it has been held that the "right to privacy" is available even to a woman of easy virtue and no one can invade her privacy. A police Inspector visited the house of a lady in uniform and demanded to have sexual intercourse with her. On refusing he tried to have her by force. She raised a hue and cry. When he was prosecuted he told the Court that she was a lady of easy virtue and therefore her evidence was not to be relied. The Court rejected the argument of the applicant and held him liable for violating her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
0 Comments