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)