Ruchi Kalra & Ors. vs Slowform Media Private Limited & Ors. on 24 March, 2025
114. Moreover, from a journalistic point of view, the article does not
appear to fall in the category of reckless reporting and is claimed to be
source-based, context-specific reporting. To injunct a publication of this
nature would disturb the equilibrium that this Court must strike between the
freedom of speech and the right to reputation, and would unjustifiably tilt
the scale in favour of the latter, at the cost of the former. This Court in
Khushwant Singh and Another v. Maneka Gandhi39 reiterated that the
fundamental right to publish and the freedom of the press is guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that this
right is inviolable except within the reasonable restrictions permitted under
Article 19(2). The Court further observed that public figures, by virtue of
their status, are subject to heightened civic scrutiny, and their private lives
may become subjects of public debate. The Court emphasized that freedom
of speech extends not only to reasonable individuals but also to those who
may hold unconventional or extreme opinions. Furthermore, it was held that
Courts may not pre-emptively restrain the publication of an article merely
on the ground that it is defamatory, provided the publisher asserts its
intention to justify the statements as true or to make a fair comment on a
matter of public interest. It was further observed that if a publication has
already been widely discussed and reported, and if the publisher is prepared
to substantiate its claims, an injunction against publication would not be
appropriate.