Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N on 7 October, 1994 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, heard by the Supreme Court of India on 7th October 1994, the court was presented with a complex interplay between the freedom of press and the right to privacy of citizens. The case was presided over by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy.

Facts of the Case

The first petitioner was the editor, printer, and publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine, Nakkheeran, and the second petitioner was the associate editor of the same magazine. They sought a writ, order, or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to restrain the respondents, namely the State of Tamil Nadu, Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, and Superintendent of Prisons (Central Prison), Salem, Tamil Nadu from interfering with the publication of the autobiography of a condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar, in their magazine.

Auto Shankar was charged and tried for six murders and was sentenced to death. The petitioners claimed that Auto Shankar wrote his autobiography while in jail, revealing his connections with several IAS, IPS, and other officers, some of whom were his partners in several crimes. The petitioners alleged that the prison officials forced Auto Shankar to write letters denying the authorship of the autobiography and its publication in the magazine.

Issues Raised

The case raised several significant issues:

  1. Whether a citizen can prevent another person from writing his life story or biography and if such unauthorized writing infringes the citizen’s right to privacy.
  2. Whether the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) entitles the press to publish such unauthorized account of a citizen’s life and activities.
  3. Whether the Government can maintain an action for its defamation and whether the Government has any legal authority to impose prior restraint on the press to prevent publication of material defamatory of its officials.
  4. Whether the prison officials can prevent the publication of the life story of a prisoner on the ground that the prisoner being incarcerated and thus not being in a position to adopt legal remedies to protect his rights.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution but has been inferred from Article 21. It also noted that the right to privacy has two aspects: the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy, and the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion.

The court also discussed the freedom of press and its limitations. It noted that the freedom of press is not absolute and must be balanced with other rights and values. The court also recognized that the press has a critical role in a democratic society and that its freedom is safeguarded by the Constitution.

The court concluded that it could not resolve the disputed question of fact, i.e., whether Auto Shankar had indeed written his autobiography and/or whether he had requested or authorized the petitioners to publish the same in their magazine. The court stated that this disputed question may have to be resolved before an appropriate court or forum.

This case is significant as it highlighted the delicate balance between the freedom of press and the right to privacy, and the complexities involved in maintaining this balance in a democratic society.