Krishna Kishore Singh vs Sarla A Saraogi & Ors. on 11 July, 2023
65. This aspect of right of privacy analysed in view of the
conclusions of the Supreme Court as set forth in R. Rajagopal's
case (supra) fully support the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Thus the observations strongly relied
upon by Mr. Panjwani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the
first point summarised by the Supreme Court cannot be read out of
the context. As explained hereinabove the concept of consent,
while dealing with the private lives of the persons was made in
respect of the claim for damages. Not only this the Supreme Court
further went on to observe that the position would be different if a
person voluntarily thrusts himself into a controversy or voluntarily
invites or raises a controversy. Suffice it to say that the respondent
in fact at the relevant time drew strength or at least kept quite when
the controversy was reported in the press. Issue of public record is
not material in the present case because the controversy does not
relate to the fact whether prior reporting of a matter becomes
public records, which in law it does not, but that wide publicity and
reporting having already been given to the matter in issue at the
relevant stage of time. The task, though difficult it may be, for
persons holding public office, cannot be summed up but to say that
such persons have to show greater tolerance for comments and
criticisms. One cannot but once again rely on the observations of
Cockburn C.J. in ―Seymour v. Butterworth‖ cited with approval in
Kartar Singh's case (supra) to the effect that the persons holding
public offices must not be thin skinned in reference to the
comments made on them and even where they know that the
Signature Not Verified observations are undeserved and unjust they must bear with them
Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) 187/2021 Page 49 of 68
RAWAT
Signing Date:12.07.2023
10:10:24
and submit to be misunderstood for a time. At times public figures
have to ignore vulgar criticism and abuses hurled against them and
they must restrain themselves from giving importance to the same
by prosecuting the person responsible for the same.