•         Citation: 1995 AIR 264; 1994 SCC (6) 632

•          Dates:

◦        Writ petition filed in 1994

◦        Judgment delivered by Supreme Court on 07.10.1994

•          Relevant cases:

◦        Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295

◦        Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148

•          Brief Facts and Procedural History:

◦        The petitioners, the editor, printer and publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran, sought to publish the autobiography of a condemned prisoner named Shankar, who was convicted for six murders and was popularly known as Auto Shankar.

◦        The autobiography allegedly contained details of his nexus with several influential persons, including politicians, bureaucrats and police officers, who were involved in various crimes and illegal activities.

◦        The respondents, the State Government and the prison authorities, threatened to take legal action against the petitioners if they published the autobiography, claiming that it was false, defamatory and against the prison rules.

◦        The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with their right to publish the autobiography and also seeking protection of their right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy of Auto Shankar.

•          Issue: Whether the respondents can prevent the publication of the autobiography on the grounds of defamation or breach of privacy.

•          Ratio: The Supreme Court held that the respondents cannot prevent the publication of the autobiography on the grounds of defamation or breach of privacy, for the following reasons:

◦        The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to publish and circulate one’s views and opinions as well as those of others, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

◦        The right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it encompasses both bodily integrity and informational self-determination.

◦        The right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted by a valid law or a compelling public interest.

◦        The right to privacy of a public official or a public figure is lower than that of an ordinary citizen, as they are subject to greater public scrutiny and criticism.

◦        The press has a right to criticise and comment on the acts and conduct of public officials and public figures, as long as it is based on true facts and does not amount to contempt of court or breach of parliamentary privilege.

◦        The press cannot be restrained from publishing any material prior to its publication on the ground of defamation or invasion of privacy, as it would amount to prior restraint or censorship, which is anathema to a democratic polity.

◦        The press can be held liable for defamation or invasion of privacy only after the publication of the material, if it is proved that it was false or malicious or that it violated any law or court order.

•          Held: The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and restrained the respondents from interfering with the publication of the autobiography by the petitioners. It also laid down certain guidelines for balancing the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy in such cases. It observed that:

◦        A citizen has a right to safeguard his own privacy, family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child- bearing and education among other matters.

◦        No one can publish anything concerning these matters without his consent, whether truthful or otherwise, whether laudatory or critical.

◦        If he does so, he would be violating his right to privacy and would be liable for damages.

◦        However, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy, he cannot claim any protection from criticism or comment on his acts or conduct.

◦        Similarly, if a matter becomes a matter of public record, such as court proceedings or legislative debates, no one can claim any protection from publication on such matters.

◦        In case of public officials or public figures, there is another exception. If they are involved in any official act

or conduct which affects public interest or public welfare, they cannot claim any protection from criticism or comment on such acts or conduct by the press or others.

◦        However, such criticism or comment must be based on true facts which are either admitted by them or proved by evidence in court. If they are false or malicious, they would be liable for defamation.

◦        The burden of proving the truth of such facts is on the press or others who assert them. They cannot rely on the defence of fair comment or public interest unless

they prove the truth of the facts.