Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)
Monal Dineshbhai Chokshi & 2 vs State Bank Of India & on 31 March, 2015 cites

People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2003

Similarly, in another judgment in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 399, arising out of a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Representation of People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 dealing with the disclosure of information by a candidate, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "by declaration of a fact, which is a matter of public record, that a candidate was involved in various criminal cases, there is no question of infringement of any right of privacy."
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 601 - Full Document

Gobind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 18 March, 1975

27. Therefore, what we are concerned with is the second facet of the right where constitutional recognition is sought to be given to such right Page 18 of 24 C/SCA/8323/2013 JUDGMENT of privacy. Though the right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution, it has been inferred from Art. 21 with the interpretative process by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court for which a useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 1378 in the case of Gobind v. State of M.P. and AIR 1963 SC 1295 in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P and ors.. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal (supra) has clearly observed laying down broad guidelines, (1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone." A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962

27. Therefore, what we are concerned with is the second facet of the right where constitutional recognition is sought to be given to such right Page 18 of 24 C/SCA/8323/2013 JUDGMENT of privacy. Though the right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution, it has been inferred from Art. 21 with the interpretative process by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court for which a useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 1378 in the case of Gobind v. State of M.P. and AIR 1963 SC 1295 in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P and ors.. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal (supra) has clearly observed laying down broad guidelines, (1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone." A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next