Supreme Court Upholds Press Freedom to Publish Life Story of Condemned Prisoner with Privacy Safeguards

SC rules that freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) allows publication of public records and autobiographies, but unauthorized private details violate right to privacy under Article 21.

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 7, 1994, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Suhas C. Sen addressed critical issues at the intersection of the right to privacy and freedom of the press. The case arose from a writ petition filed by R. Rajagopal and others, editors of the Tamil weekly magazine ‘Nakkheeran’, seeking to publish the autobiography of a condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar, which the prison authorities opposed.

The petitioner magazine intended to serialize the life story of Auto Shankar, convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death, which purportedly exposed nexus between the prisoner and certain high-ranking IAS and IPS officers. The prison authorities objected, claiming the autobiography was not authored by Auto Shankar, and demanded the cessation of its publication. The petitioners contended that the publication was made with the prisoner’s consent and was protected under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to privacy is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution but is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court traced the development of this right through Indian jurisprudence and international decisions, emphasizing that privacy concerns personal intimacies related to home, family, marriage, and other private matters. The Court clarified that any publication concerning such private matters without consent constitutes an invasion of privacy and is actionable.

However, the Court balanced this right against the fundamental freedom of the press, noting that once information is a matter of public record, including court records, the right to privacy ceases, and the material may be legitimately published and commented upon by the media. It carved out exceptions to protect decency, especially concerning victims of sexual offences, whose identities should not be disclosed in the press.

Significantly, the Court ruled that public officials do not enjoy the right to privacy concerning their official acts and conduct. Publications about public officials in their official capacity are protected under freedom of speech, subject to the condition that false statements made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth may attract liability. The Court also held that neither the State nor its officials have the authority to impose prior restraint on the press, and the remedy for defamation lies in subsequent legal action post-publication.

The Court dismissed the prison authorities’ claim that they could act on behalf of the prisoner to protect his privacy, noting no prison rule confers such power and that any such protection arises only after publication. The judgment thus allowed the publication of the autobiography to the extent it relied on public records but cautioned against publishing unauthorized private details.

This ruling marks a significant development in Indian constitutional law, emphasizing a nuanced balance between individual privacy rights and the indispensable role of a free press in a democratic society. It reaffirms that the press has the right to scrutinize and expose matters of public interest, especially involving public officials, while respecting privacy boundaries.

Statutory provisions: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Sections 499, 500 IPC; Official Secrets Act, 1923.

R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 38559