ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Right to Privacy Right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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. Publication concerning these matters without consent, whether truthful or otherwise, amounts to invasion of privacy and gives rise to a civil action for damages.

advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 21 — Right to Privacy
Right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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. Publication concerning these matters without consent, whether truthful or otherwise, amounts to invasion of privacy and gives rise to a civil action for damages.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2) — Freedom of Press — Prior restraint
Neither the State nor its officials have any authority in law to impose prior restraint on publication by the press on the ground that the material is defamatory. There is no law empowering the Government or public officials to prohibit or restrain publication in advance. Remedy, if any, arises only after publication.

Press and Media — Biography / Autobiography — Consent — Public records
No person can publish the life story or biography of another without consent if it relates to private life. However, once a matter becomes part of public records, including court records, the right to privacy no longer subsists to that extent and such material becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the press.

Press and Media — Sexual offences — Victim’s identity — Decency
Even where material forms part of public records, an exception must be carved out in the interest of decency. Identity of a female victim of sexual assault, kidnapping or abduction shall not be published in press or media.

Public Officials — Right to Privacy — Official acts
Public officials do not enjoy the right to privacy in respect of acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases, even incorrect publication is protected unless it is established that the publication was made with reckless disregard for truth or actuated by malice.

Public Officials — Defamation — Burden of proof
In cases relating to official conduct, it is sufficient for the press to show that reasonable verification was undertaken. It is not necessary for the publisher to prove absolute truth. However, where publication is false and motivated by malice or personal animosity, liability for damages follows.

Government — Defamation — Maintainability
Government, local authorities, and organs exercising governmental power cannot maintain a suit for damages for defamation. Allowing such actions would place an impermissible fetter on freedom of speech and expression.

Prison Administration — Powers — Publication of prisoner’s life story
Prison authorities have no legal authority to restrain publication of a prisoner’s life story on the ground of protecting the prisoner’s privacy, particularly when no such request is made by the prisoner and no prison rule authorises such restraint. Any alleged infringement can be addressed only after publication.

Constitutional Law — Writ jurisdiction — Disputed facts
In a writ petition under Article 32, disputed questions of fact regarding authorship or consent cannot be adjudicated. The Court may proceed on assumptions limited to deciding constitutional questions without recording findings of fact.

Held
State and its officials have no power to impose prior restraint on publication. Petitioners entitled to publish material derived from public records. Any remedy for defamation or invasion of privacy lies only post-publication, in accordance with law.

I. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The petitioners were the editor and associate editor of a Tamil weekly magazine proposing to publish the autobiography of a condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar, who had been convicted for multiple murders and sentenced to death.
The petitioners asserted that the autobiography was written by the prisoner while in jail, handed over to his wife with the knowledge of prison authorities, and intended by the prisoner himself to be published.
Prior to publication, the Inspector General of Prisons issued a communication directing the petitioners to stop publication, alleging:
- That the autobiography was not authored by the prisoner;
- That no valid authorisation or power of attorney existed;
- That publication violated prison rules;
- That legal action could follow if publication continued.
The petitioners apprehended coercive action by State authorities and invoked Article 32, alleging infringement of freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a).
Neither the prisoner, nor his wife, nor his advocate were parties to the writ petition. Authorship and consent were thus seriously disputed questions of fact.
The Supreme Court expressly declined to decide disputed factual questions and proceeded on an assumption, only for the purpose of adjudicating constitutional issues, that:
- The prisoner had not written the autobiography, and
- He had not authorised its publication.

II. CORE LEGAL ISSUES EXAMINED

Whether unauthorised publication of a person’s life story violates the right to privacy under Article 21.
Whether freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) permits publication of such material and to what extent.
Whether the State or its officials can impose prior restraint on publication on grounds of defamation or privacy.
Whether public officials can prevent publication apprehending damage to reputation.
Whether prison authorities have power to restrain publication purportedly to protect a prisoner’s interests.

III. ANALYSIS OF LAW

A. Right to Privacy — Article 21

The Court held that the right to privacy is implicit in Article 21, though not expressly enumerated.
Privacy protects matters relating to:
- Family
- Marriage
- Procreation
- Motherhood
- Child-bearing
- Education
Publication concerning these matters without consent, whether true or false, laudatory or critical, constitutes invasion of privacy and attracts civil liability.
However, the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to case-by-case development.

B. Public Records — Exception to Privacy

Once information enters public records, including court records, the right to privacy to that extent ceases.
Such material becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the press and media.
A specific exception was carved out in the interest of decency, protecting identity of female victims of sexual offences, even if records are public.

C. Public Officials — Privacy and Defamation

Public officials do not enjoy privacy protection in respect of acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official duties.
Even incorrect publication relating to official conduct is protected unless:
- Publication is made with reckless disregard for truth, or
- Publication is actuated by malice or personal animosity.
In such cases, the burden on the press is limited to showing reasonable verification, not absolute truth.

D. Government and Public Authorities — Defamation

Government, local authorities, and institutions exercising governmental power cannot maintain suits for defamation.
Allowing such actions would create a chilling effect on free speech and public debate, contrary to constitutional democracy.

E. Prior Restraint — Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)

The Court categorically held that no law empowers the State or its officials to impose prior restraint on press publications.
Any restraint before publication carries a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.
Remedies for defamation or invasion of privacy, if any, arise only after publication, not before.

F. Prison Authorities — Lack of Power

Prison officials have no authority in law to restrain publication of a prisoner’s life story.
No prison rule was shown empowering officials to act on behalf of the prisoner’s privacy.
Even protection of prisoner’s rights, if required, can arise only post-publication through legal remedies.

IV. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

Even assuming lack of authorship or consent, the State and prison authorities had no jurisdiction to prohibit publication in advance.
Petitioners were entitled to publish material derived from public records.
Any grievance of:
- The prisoner (privacy), or
- Public officials (defamation),
  lies only after publication, before a competent court.

V. CONCLUSION / HOLDING

Prior restraint imposed by State authorities was unconstitutional.
Freedom of press prevailed subject to post-publication legal remedies.
Writ petition allowed; no costs.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Sunday, December 21, 2025