Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 77 (1.31 seconds)Article 10 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi on 18 September, 2001
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.
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation
Ltd. (supra) while describing the role of this
Court in balancing the fundamental rights, the
Constitution Bench observed that the Supreme
Court is not only the sentinel of the
fundamental rights but also a balancing wheel
between the rights, subject to social control.
The larger Bench further observed that:-
Pushp Sharma vs Db Corp Ltd. And Ors. on 28 September, 2018
174. The pleadings of the parties and contentions raised on behalf of
either side are before this Court unlike the facts in which the
impugned order in Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and
Forum for Media and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd.
and Ors. (supra) were assailed.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Forum For Media And Literature And Anr. vs Db Corp Ltd. And Ors. on 28 September, 2018
174. The pleadings of the parties and contentions raised on behalf of
either side are before this Court unlike the facts in which the
impugned order in Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and
Forum for Media and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd.
and Ors. (supra) were assailed.
Dr. Shashi Tharoor vs Arnab Goswami And Anr on 1 December, 2017
Thus, the contentions
raised on behalf of the respondents that 25,000 copies of the BOOK
have already entered in the market and no useful purpose would be
now served by grant of ad-interim injunction before conclusion of the
trial in as much as the copies which have already entered into the
market will continue to sell, re-sell and be read and re-read cannot be
accepted as also brought forward through the verdict of this Court in
Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami 2017 SCC Onling 12049 and
Bhaichung Bhutia Vs. Saumik Dutta & Ors. (2014) 215 DLT 415
which restrained publishing and re-publishing of alleged defamatory
imputations.