Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (3.29 seconds)
Documents citing Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi on 18 September, 2001

Swami Ramdev vs Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd & Ors on 29 September, 2018

145. Thus as laid down thereby, whatever may be of the interest to the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach of privacy and an individual thus has a right to protection to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only against false truth but also certain truths. It is thus in this context that the verdicts in Sardar Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie & Ors. 1983 (4) DRJ 86, Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2001) SCC Online Del 1030, Indu Jain v. Forbes Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del 1424 coupled with the factum that the submissions of the respondents themselves in relation to the aspect of there being no meaningful difference now between public officials and public figures in view of the verdict of the Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor & Ors 1995 32(DRJ) 142 have to be read wherein the right to reputation and privacy has been extended to an individual against making a film against the appellant herein shaming her being raped and paraded nude.
Delhi High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 8 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Kailash Gahlot vs Vijender Gupta & Ors. on 7 March, 2022

52. As observed in Khushwant Singh (supra) a close and microscopic examination of the private lives of public men is a natural consequence of holding public offices. Thus, what is true for a private citizen, who does not come within the public gaze, may not be true of a person holding 'public office'. Though scrutiny of public figures by media of all kinds, should not reach a stage where it would amount to harassment of the 'public figures' and their family members, but 'public gaze' is a necessary corollary of their holding public offices. In the words of the Division Bench:-
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Menon - Full Document

T. V. Today Network Limited vs News Laundry Media Private Limited & ... on 29 July, 2022

90. The ―balance of convenience‖ would, therefore, tilt in favour of the defendants No.1 to 9 as, in the event they are able to establish justification and fair comment and fair dealing, the plaintiff would fail, both in respect of their claim against copyright infringement/broadcast right violation as also defamation/disparagement. If there is no justification, there could probably be no fair comment either and thus no defence against defamation either. Moreover, no injunction in futuro can be issued, as has been held in Khushwant Singh (supra) and R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632. Admittedly, some of the videos and articles and posts in question, have been in existence since 2018 and hence, no real urgency has been shown even for the removal of even those words noted hereinbefore, by issuing mandatory injunctions to take them down. It must be kept in mind that a mandatory injunction is issued at the interim stage only in rare and extraordinary situations.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

Sushil Ansal vs Endemol India Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 12 January, 2023

12. It was contended on behalf of defendant No. 3, that the grant of CS(OS) 20/2023 Page 9 of 39 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.01.2023 15:48:14 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000205 a pre-publication injunction is to be considered only in exceptional situations and must meet an extremely high threshold. Reliance in this respect was placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushwant Singh and Another vs. Maneka Gandhi3. The relevant passages of the said decision are extracted hereinbelow: -
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Tata Sons Limited vs Greenpeace International & Anr on 28 January, 2011

It was urged in addition, that the rule of caution enunciated in Bonnard (supra) has been approved and followed, by a Division Bench of this Court, in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Del 58. Learned counsel urged that this Court should also be mindful of the fact that the present suit, is an instance of a SLAPP SUIT, the sole objective of which is the plaintiff‟s desire to muffle or stifle criticisms about the ecological damage threatened by the Dhamra Port Project. It was argued that though the Port is a joint venture, the real beneficiary after it comes up, is the Tata group, as it (the port) affords a proximate sailing point from which their products, such as steel, etc. can be shipped.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 32 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next