Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.....Kharak Singh vs. State of UP, 1964 (1) SCR 332, the UP Regulations regarding domiciliary visits were in question and the majority referred to Munn vs. Illinois (1876) 94 US 113 and held that though our Constitution did not refer to the right to privacy expressly, still it can be traced from the right to 'life' in Article

21......

.....The privacy right can be denied only when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior', or where a compelling State interest was shown."

2. Right of privacy is not expressly guaranteed. However, the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh's case (AIR 1963 SC 1295) held that right to privacy is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of India. In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994(6) SCC 632 and in P.U.C.L. v. Union of India, (1997) ISCC 301 Supreme Court reiterated the law that right to privacy is part of the right to 'life' and 'personal liberty' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In these decisions, the Supreme Court placed reliance on the International Treaties to which India is signatory and came to a conclusion that Article 21 read with relevant Article in the International Treaty/Covenant would lead to a conclusion that right to privacy is part of Article 21.

3. The Supreme Court recognized that right to privacy by itself has not been identified under the Constitution and that as a concept; it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether the right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on facts of each case. Describing the origin of the right to privacy. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Gopal's case observed as follows: -

"The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field to Tort Law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from 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 a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognition 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."
(2) 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. But a publication concerning the above aspects becomes unobjectionable, if such publication is based upon public records including court records. Once something becomes a matter of public record, the right of privacy no longer exists. The only exception to this could be in the interest of decency.