“Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

SUBMISSION of ‘ICE Even: PROJECT’ for ‘Constitutional Law’

Submitted by:
Smriti Sharma
PRN: 22010223122
Programme: BA.LLB.
Division: E
Semester: IV
Year: 2nd Year
Batch: 2022-27
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
Topic Assigned: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264: (1994) 6 SCC 632:
(1995) 2 SCJ 86

Submitted to:
Dr. Sakshi Tewari
Assistant Professor
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

(February 2024)”
S.No. Content Page No.
 1 “Introduction 3

2 Facts 3

3 Rule 3

4 Issue 3

5 Analysis 4-5

6 Judgement 5-6

7 Conclusion 6”

INTRODUCTION
“Freedom of Press is an Article of Faith with us, sanctified by our Constitution, validated by
four decades of freedom and indispensable to our future as a Nation."
In India's constitution, the freedom of press as given under Article 19(1)(a) is crucial for
democracy and personal freedom. Freedom of the press stands tall as one of the most
essential rights that envisages and regulates the sense of security individuals require to shape
a fair and democratic society. Although being a fundamental right, freedom of the press faces
certain reasonable restrictions for it is challenged by hate speech, national security, and
keeping public order in mind.
The case of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu therefore captures a complex interaction of
rights, ethics, and rules, with the autobiography functioning as a spark for legal debates about
the limits of free expression in the prison setting.
Freedom of the press is bridged by the loopholes in the legal framework and although it has
evolved through various mosaics and perpetuated into different areas of the legal world to
protect this right it is important for a strong democratic society. The idea of privacy linked to
personal freedom must be considered along with other rights and values. The Apex Court of
India decided that a magazine could print a prisoner's autobiography, even if the prisoner
didn't agree. The prison officials tried to stop the magazine by making the prisoner ask not to
publish it. The Court, in this case, strived to strike that it's crucial to find a balance between
press freedom and privacy. The contention was whether the government and its officials
couldn't stop things from being published merely because it stated information which could
hamper the image of the government. The case widens freedom of speech by restricting the
government from stopping speech before it happens.
FACTS
Shankar, an auto driver, faced the death penalty on murder charges. Despite receiving a life
term in jail, he authored an autobiography in which he revealed his unlawful actions with
senior prison officials. As he awaited death, he was able to send the book to his wife through
jail officials. She then delivered it to the petitioners, who included “the Editor, Printer, and
Publisher of Nakkheeran, a Tamil weekly magazine, as well as the magazine's Associate
Editor, to publish the book.”1
However, “the Inspector-General of Prisons intervened, stating that the autobiography was
fake and that its publishing broke prison rules. The Inspector-General said that the book was
possibly defamatory to prison employees and authorities.”2 He cautioned the petitioners that
they would face legal penalties if they published the book.
The book vividly describes the prisoner's close relationships with numerous high-ranking
officials, including those from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service
(IPS), and other officers, several of whom worked with him on different illicit enterprises. A
video cassette and several images of these cops attending Auto Shankar's housewarming
event provide concrete proof to back the story. The visual documentary backs up the claim of
their involvement and presence in the events recounted in the autobiography, providing

1
Law circa, https://lawcirca.com/r-rajagopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors/
#Facts_of_the_case%C2%B7, last visited 20 February 2024
2
Law circa, https://lawcirca.com/r-rajagopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors/
#Facts_of_the_case%C2%B7, last visited 20 February 2024
concrete evidence of the ties and alliances formed between the prisoner and the cops
mentioned throughout the conduct of several crimes.
The respondents sought to prosecute the petitioners under Sections 499/500 IPC.
The Inspector-General's complaint highlighted the conflict between the prisoner's account and
the possible harm it may do to the reputations of prison personnel.

ISSUE
Whether the state have the power to breach people's privacy by prohibiting a book's
publication?
Whether a genuine violation of the rights to freedom of speech and expression took place, as
well as the right to privacy, for both the prisoner and the publisher?
CASES REFERRED
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P | 1964 SCR (1) 332
Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors AIR 1975 SC 1378
RULE
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code
ANALYSIS
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that infringement of the right to privacy encompasses a
wide range of rights, including basic privacy rules. These rules define any improper conduct
that damages an individual's personal life using private information. The constitutional status
of this right protects people's personal issues, secrets, and property against unjustified
government involvement. The Court emphasised the basic character of this right while
reminding citizens that these rights are not absolute and must be properly balanced.
The Court emphasised the need to strike a fine balance between the rights to press freedom
and privacy, citing international judgements. It argued that neither the state nor its officials
had the authority to impose prior prohibitions on potentially defamatory content. While
recognising the state's ability to prosecute defamation proceedings after publication, the
Court ruled that any effort at prior constraint on publication violated Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution.
Using these established criteria, the Court upheld the petitioners' right to publish Auto
Shankar's autobiography, including elements that were already in the public domain, without
getting approval or authorization. However, the Court cautioned against going too far,
emphasising that revealing data about someone's private life without authorization or when
they are not public records may violate the right to privacy, making the publisher accountable
for legal repercussions.
Furthermore, the Court said unambiguously that the state or its authorities could not block the
publishing of any piece, upholding the petitioners' freedom to publish Auto Shankar's
autobiography. Any measure in this regard would infringe not only upon freedom of speech
and expression but also upon the entitlement to life and individual freedom protected by
Sections 19 and 21 of the Constitution. “The Court's decision underlines the difficult balance
necessary to preserve individual rights while also guaranteeing the appropriate exercise of
press freedom within the confines of the laws. It is implicitly enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty). Furthermore, it was stated that public
officials cannot file defamation suits for actions performed during official duties unless it is
proven that the publication is false.”3
The state could not impose prior limitations or pre-bans on publications, the court said.
However, if there was clear malice in defaming public authorities or residents, individuals
might launch defamation lawsuits after the fact. The court determined that the autobiography
was not defamatory and did not contain any assertions that violated someone's privacy by
using the guidelines and standards from the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. As a result, it
upheld the publishers' entitlement to publish the autobiography and declared that news
organisations were free to publish personal narratives and facts about people as long as the
sources were open public records.
The court referenced key cases regarding privacy, specifically Kharak Singh & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors and Gobind vs. State of MP & Anr, to highlight the emergence of an
independent right to privacy from the "Right to personal liberty, the right to move freely
throughout the territory of India, and the freedom of speech" - an essential right. The court
emphasised that there are circumstances in which the right to privacy is not unqualified and
that a case-by-case developing process is necessary. The basic nature of the right to privacy
has been established.
The primary argument presented by the petitioner was that each person possesses an inherent
entitlement to convey their opinions, and no one can hinder or infringe upon those rights.
They asserted that government officials had attempted to enforce limitations due to
apprehension that their affiliations might be revealed publicly.
The petitioner argued that the detainee is endowed with the basic entitlement under Article
19(1)(a) to publish his book at any time of his choosing. Additionally, they “further
contended that the right to privacy was not considered a fundamental right during that period;
consequently, the right to freedom of speech could take precedence depending on the gravity
of the issue.”4
The main defence offered by the accused was that Shankar's autobiography contained
derogatory and false information, and that its publication may endanger or infringe upon the
officials' and the prison authorities' right to privacy. Furthermore, the petitioners said that
there was insufficient proof presented by the publishers to verify if Shankar was the true
author of the book or if the claim was baseless.
“The Supreme Court determined that the inmate possesses absolute privileges to release his
life story, and the publishing entity has the freedom to issue the autobiography at its

3
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
4
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
discretion. The publisher is also entitled to disseminate information about Shankar, which
falls within the realm of public records, even without securing prior consent from Sankar.” 5
The court upon reviewing decisions from around the world and evaluating their applicability
to the Indian Constitution underlined the need to preserve a balance between the right to
privacy and journalistic freedom. The state and its representatives do not have the right to
impose prepublication limitations on items that can be construed as defamatory against the
state, the court decided. As a result, the respondents cannot impose any kind of previous
restriction or limitation on the planned publication date of the alleged autobiography.
The court made it clear that when it came to things about their official duties, public officials
had no right to privacy. It declared that unless it broke any rules already in place, publication
—with or without the author's consent—was lawful. The court emphasised the necessity for a
balance between the right to privacy and press freedom, even though there was no explicit
rule requiring the state to impose restrictions on such publications
The right to privacy was addressed in the case, confirming its standing as a basic right.
According to this instance, Article 21 is understood to include the right to privacy as a
fundamental component. It should not be disregarded lightly. Thus, everyone has a right to
protect their own and their family's privacy. The court explained that although the right to
privacy isn't mentioned specifically in the constitution, some aspects of this right are.
The arbitrators decided that as long as it is clear from publicly available documents, the
distributors can distribute the book without Shankar's or experts' approval. They are not
allowed to publish any private information, though, since doing so might result in legal action
and penalties for infringing someone's "right to privacy." The state may pursue a remedy in
the case that the aforementioned criterion is violated, even though it cannot stop the
publishing.
JUDGEMENT
The court held that it is necessary to affirm that the individuals filing the petition possess the
entitlement to release what they claim to be the life account/autobiography of Auto Shankar
to the extent evident in public records, even in the absence of his approval or authorization.
However, should they surpass this and disclose his life narrative, they may encroach upon his
right to privacy and will be accountable for the repercussions as per the law. In addressing
Article 19(1)A, the court gave priority to protecting family privacy, which is guaranteed the
right to freedom of speech and expression with constraints under Article 19(2). Similarly, the
State or its representatives are unable to obstruct or prohibit the mentioned publication.

CONCLUSION
After presenting a brief analysis of the case, it is clear that the right to freedom of speech and
expression is critical in a democratic society. The decision, in this case, is a strong
endorsement of press freedom and the right to privacy. However, it is critical to acknowledge
that no freedom is absolute. Legislation in India should define fair constraints on these
liberties, considering the existing socioeconomic context, rather than depending only on

5
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
foreign norms to decide their boundaries.
This legal matter holds special importance as it aims to establish a direct correlation between
the entitlement to privacy and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which elucidates the
entitlement to life and individual freedom. The acknowledgement by the judiciary of privacy
as a vital element of Article 21 underscores the foundational nature of this right within the
constitutional structure. It underscores that the right to privacy is not a secondary
consideration but an inherent component of an individual's entitlement to life and personal
liberty.
Furthermore, the case demonstrates that public persons, regardless of their notoriety, cannot
prohibit any communication that infringes on an ordinary citizen's privacy. It creates a
precedent that everything in the public domain can be published, but this should not
jeopardise an individual's right to privacy. Striking a balance between public interest and
private privacy becomes critical under such circumstances.
The court's sophisticated assessment reinforces the delicate balance that must be maintained
in a democratic society. While highlighting the value of free expression and press freedom,
the decision emphasises the importance of using these rights responsibly, particularly when it
comes to privacy concerns. It emphasises that the right to privacy is not an absolute shield;
rather, it is a right that must be evaluated against other competing interests to ensure that
justice is served fairly.
Finally, this case marks a watershed moment in India's legal environment, showing the
complex interplay between the rights to free speech and expression, privacy, and the
responsibilities that come with these rights. It not only emphasises the fundamental principles
of democracy but also advocates for a nuanced and context-specific approach to determining
the boundaries of these liberties in a continually changing socioeconomic environment.
REFERENCES
http://www.scconline.com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/DocumentLink/xmxqbh0E
https://lawcirca.com/r-rajagopal-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors/#Facts_of_the_case%C2%B7

https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:52099/