Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing V.Gopal Reddiar (Dead) By L.R. And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 6 December, 1994

Ms.Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs Thiru.P.Varadarajan

In the report of the group of experts on privacy headed by Honble Mr.Justice A.P.Shah, the former Chief Justice of this High Court, the question of balancing the Right to Privacy against the right of free speech has been adverted to, in the said report, the group of experts after referring to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, have observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

M.Veerappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 February, 2019

8. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that Unnamalai Achi filed her statutory returns under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58 of 1961 on 13.07.1965. Thus even though the proceedings had commenced under the Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, the fact remains that they were continued after the Reduction Act came into force. Thus the case on hand will be http://www.judis.nic.in 13 governed by the ratio of Gopal Reddiar case, as rightly contended by Thiru.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Thiru.Veerappan.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

G.K.Mani vs New Generation Media Corporation (P) ... on 15 March, 2019

27. It is the further contention of Mr.Ar.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel, that even the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (6) MLJ 267, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 264, and the judgment of mine in Ms.Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. P.Varadarajan and others, reported in 2018 (3) CTC 710, make an exception regarding comments on political http://www.judis.nic.in 23 actions of political leaders and what has been prohibited is only publication of any matter relating to the private life of the political leaders. He would further submit that even the material produced by the plaintiffs in the typed set of papers by way of interviews and other publications would only show that all the comments therein are against the political actions and the political affairs of the plaintiff’s party and its leaders. Nothing personal has been said about them, therefore, the injunction sought for cannot be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

G.K.Mani vs New Generation Media Corporation (P) ... on 15 March, 2019

27. It is the further contention of Mr.Ar.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel, that even the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (6) MLJ 267, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 264, and the judgment of mine in Ms.Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. P.Varadarajan and others, reported in 2018 (3) CTC 710, make an exception regarding comments on political http://www.judis.nic.in 23 actions of political leaders and what has been prohibited is only publication of any matter relating to the private life of the political leaders. He would further submit that even the material produced by the plaintiffs in the typed set of papers by way of interviews and other publications would only show that all the comments therein are against the political actions and the political affairs of the plaintiff’s party and its leaders. Nothing personal has been said about them, therefore, the injunction sought for cannot be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - R Subramanian - Full Document

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

Dr.Krishna Menon vs High Court Of Kerala on 22 December, 2022

Exhibit R3(5) TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE CASE REMOVAL POLICY OF THE RESPONDENT, WHICH IS DISPLAYED ON ITS WEBSITE AT HTTPS://INDIANKANOON.ORG/COURT CASE ONLINE.HTML Exhibit R3(6) A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF CLAUSE 20 AND CLAUSE 63 OF DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2021. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21917/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE IMAGE OF THE GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS OF NIKHIL S RAJAN AS ON 20.09.2020.
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

The Managing Director, Makkal Tholai ... vs Mrs. V. Muthulakshmi on 26 October, 2007

14. Both the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent have relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors. . That was a case relating to one Auto Shankar, who was convicted for six murders and was sentenced to death, who had written autobiography in jail and handed over the same to his wife for being delivered to his advocate with a request to publish the same in the petitioner's magazine. When the said Autobiography was sought to be published, the issue arose as to whether a citizen of this country can prevent any person from writing his story or biography? and whether such unauthorised writing infringe the citizen's right to privacy? And also the issue arose in that case about the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next