Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi on 18 September, 2001

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
1