freedom

Whether the freedom of press guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) entitles the press to publish such unauthorised account of a citizen's life and activities and if so to what extent and in what circumstances?

The question regarding the freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country was tried to be solved by the Supreme Court. It also raises the question as to the parameters of the right of the press to criticise and comment on the acts and conduct of public officials.

It was observed by the Hon’ble bench that-

“ The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person's name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that matter, his life story is written whether laudatory or otherwise and published without his consent as explained hereinafter. In recent times, however, this right has acquired a constitutional status. We shall proceed to explain how? Right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution but has been inferred from Art. 21.”

Further they stated-

The freedom of press is concerned it flows from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a). But the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions placed thereon by an existing law or a law made after the commencement of the Constitution in the interests of or in relation to the several matters set out therein. Decency and defamation are two of the grounds mentioned in clause (2). Law of Torts providing for damages for invasion of the right to privacy and defamation and Sections 499/500, I.P.C. are the existing laws saved under clause (2).

Lastly they concluded-

(1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Art. 21. It is a "right to be let alone." A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, 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 to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.

(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including Court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency (Article 19(2)) an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being published in press/ media.

  

Thakur Dongar Singh Vs Krishna Kan AIR 1958 MP 216

It should also be borne in mind that in the matter of defamation the position of newspapers is not any way different from that of members of the public in general. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention is no way less in the case of newspapers publications than that required from ordinary men. This is clear from the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Arnold V/s. King-Emperor, 41 Ind App 149: (AIR 1914 PC 116) (A)

SECTION 125, Criminal Procedure Code in India provides for the maintenance for the wife who are neglected by there husbands, also to there childs and parents. which follows in bare law as mentioned below-

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

A Magistrate of' the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate¹[***] as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct::

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of' sufficient means.
²[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the Proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person]

Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter.

(a) Minor means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1975 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) "Wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

³[(2) Any Such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.]

(3) If any Person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to company with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's ⁴[ allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the day on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation. If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to, live with her, husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

1. The words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" omitted by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

2. Ins. by Act 50 of 2001, sec.2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

3. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

4. Subs. By Act 50 of 2001, sec 2, for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).


The underline portion of the section are relevant to be noticed,this depicts that we have so strong jurisprudence law for the law of maintenance but where we lack-
i feel we lack in our pecuniary thinking,towards law, we think for so short term. The person who are facing this problem are either so educated or they are illiterate. To solve this problem first we have make changes in our mind sets, to be find solution of this problems.
Even the things should be noted that code of Criminal procedure is dealing with this problem, i feel the main objective behind this enactment is that, the fees to file this litigation for maintenance should be nominal which can be afforded by any one who can claim maintenance under this section.