Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing V.Gopal Reddiar (Dead) By L.R. And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 6 December, 1994

Sanj Daily Lokopchar Through Its Owner ... vs Gokul Govindlal Sananda on 10 October, 2014

It considers the celebrated case of R.R. Gajagopal @ R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632, referred to by Shri Sirpurkar, dealing with the right of privacy of citizens of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the parameters of the right of the press under Article 19(1)(a) therein to criticize and comment on the acts and conduct of public officials. It has been held that though the right to privacy can be characterized as fundamental right, it is not an ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2014 23:48:58 ::: 18 ao37.14.odt absolute right. It has been held that in a democratic set up, a close and microscopic examination of private life of public men is a natural consequence of holding of public offices. It has been held in para 30 that what is good for a private citizen who does not come within the public gaze may not be true of a person holding public office. What a person holding public office does within the four walls of his house does not totally remain a private matter. It has been held that the scrutiny of public figures by media should not also reach a stage where it amounts to harassment to the public figures and their family members and they must be permitted to live and lead their life in peace. But the public gaze cannot be avoided which is necessary corollary of their holding public offices.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - R K Deshpande - Full Document

Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016

2. The structural architecture of these writ petitions has a history, although not in any remote past, but, in the recent times. In this batch of writ petitions, we are required to dwell upon the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”). It is necessary to note here that when the Writ Petition (Crl) No. 184 of 2014 was taken up for consideration, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the petitioner appearing in-person, had drawn our attention to paragraph 28 of the decision in R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and another v. State of T.N. and others1 which reads as follows:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 200 - Cited by 128 - D Misra - Full Document

Aditya Raj Kaul & Ors vs Naeem Akhter on 13 October, 2021

34) As already noted, in R. Rajagopal's case (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly emphasized that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. The Court has further observed that publication of the matters relating to conduct relevant to the discharge of official functions of a public figure is not defamation. Therefore, on the touchstone of the broad principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforenoted case, the reporting of contents of letter written by Shri Khalid Jahangir touching the official functioning of the department that was under the Ministry headed by the complainant, would not amount to offence of defamation.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - S Dhar - Full Document
1