Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the filed of tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting form unlawful invasion of privacy was recognised. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin - (1) the general law of privacy which affords as tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognisation given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. 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 Article 21."

41. Mr. Panjwani, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of the Single Judge of this court in Phoolan Devi vs. Shekar Kapur and others . It was contended that the plaintiff in that case also contended that in the event of the portrayal of the plaintiff in scenes where the plaintiff was being raped would offend her rights to privacy and R. Rajagopal's case (supra) was relied upon to support the said proposition. On the other hand, defendant in that matter had sought to argue that there was no right or privacy so far as public figures were concerned and further the scenes were based on public records available in inumerable number of press cuttings, press interviews etc. In examining the rival contentions the learned Single Judge had framed the question as one to be decided was whether the defendants have a right to show a woman being raped and gang-raped if the concerned woman was alive and did not want this to be made public. The learned Single Judge held in favor of the plaintiff and granted the injunction. The learned Single Judge in Phoolan Devi's case (supra) dealt with the right of privacy in para 34 as under:-

55. Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellant in his rejoinder sought to repel the contention of Mr. Panjwani in so far as the right of privacy was concerned as he contended that the same was available only against the State and all the cases in that behalf were in respect to the protection provided from action by the State. It was contended that justification or claim of truth was an absolute defense and there was no right of privacy available to individual in such a situation.

56. Mr. Sundaram further contended that even a reference to the case of S. Rajgopal's would show that the Supreme Court had clearly stated that the position would be very different if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy. in this case, it was contended, the respondent herself had been responsible for the publicity in the press at an earlier stage and it was not open for people to unveil the cloak of privacy to later cloak themselves when it so suited them. Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that Supreme Court in R Rajgopal's case (supra) had observed that in case of violation of right of privacy the remedy is - "liable in action for damages". The remedy would not be of preventive injunction which would amount to pre-censorship. In support of his contention that the matters have been widely commented upon Mr. Sundaram referred to the material placed by the appellant on record including India Today's 30th April, 1982 edition where the results of opinion poll were reproduced and almost 80% people were found to be aware of the problem relating to the disputes between the respondent and her mother-in-law late Smt. Indira Gandhi. Mr. Sundaram also referred to the observations in the said magazine to the effect that "overnight the respondents had converted Surya magazine into a broadsheet of the most outrageously scurrilous variety with salacious exposure of Janata politicians jostling with loud public relations for the Gandhis. As a scandal-buster of spurious effect, Surya despite its dwindling income, became synonymous with Maneka's private brand of mud-raking. It exposed her aggressive hard-bitten capacity for survival in tough times-another characteristic picked up from her husband and mother-in-law's political re-silence.

66. An important aspect to be examined is the claim of right of privacy advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent to seek the preventive injunction.This aspect was exhaustively dealt with in the case of Auto Shankar reported as R.Rajagopal's case (supra) . The Supreme Court while considering these aspects clearly opined that there were two aspects of the right of privacy. The first aspect was the general law of privacy which afforded tortuous action for damages from unlawful invasion of privacy. In the present case we are not concerned with the same as the suit for damages is yet to be tried. The second aspect, as per the Supreme Court, was the constitutional recognition given to the right or privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental action. This also is not the situation in the present case as we are concerned with the inter se rights of the two citizens and not a governmental action. It was in the context of the first aspect that the Supreme Court had given the illustration of the life story written - whether laudatory or otherwise and published without the consent of the person concerned. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Raj Panjwani, sought to draw strength from this aspect i.e., the lack of consent of the respondent to publish her life story in the autobiography written by appellant no.1. However, this will give rise to tortuous action for damages as per the Supreme Court since this is the aspect which is concerned with the first aspect dealt with by the Supreme Court in respect of the invasion of privacy.