R. RAJAGOPAL@ R.R. GOPAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 07-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

R. RAJAGOPAL@ R.R. GOPAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 1994 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(l)(a) and (19)2. 
Freedom of Press-Right of Press to publish autobiography of a con-
demned prisonei-Extent of-Whether prison officials can prevent publication 
C 
of prisoner's autobiography to protect his right-Right of Press to criticise the 
acts and conduct of public officials-State whether can impose prior restraint 
to prevent publication of material defamatory of its officers. 
Article 21-Right to privacy-Two important aspects of-General law 
of privacy affording action in tort in case of invasion of privacy-Constitu- D 
tional right as part of Article 21 providing protection against unlawful Govern-
ment invasion-Remedies to citizens in case of violation of right to 
privacy-Essential principles of right to privacy and exceptions to right stated. 
Article 32-Writ filed in Supreme Court-Disclosure by petitioner that E 
writ was also filed in High Court for similar relief but no orders passed by 
High Court till the date of filing writ in this Court-Maintainability of writ. 
The petitioners, Editors of a Tamil Weekly Magazine 'Nakkheeran' 
filed a writ petition in this Court seeking directions for (i) restraining the 
respondents-State and its officers - from Interfering with the publication 
F 
of the autobiography of a condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar and (Ii) ror 
restraining the Inspector General of Prison, Madras from taking the legal 
action as communicated by him in his letter dated 15th June, 1994. The 
petitioner's case was that, while in jail, the prisoner wrote his autobiog-
raphy exposing nexus between prisoner and several officers or the State 
and with the knowledge and approval of the jail authorities, handed over G 
the same to his wife for being delivered to his advocate with a request that 
it should be published in the petitioner's magazine; and that the prisoner 
also wrote several letters to his advocate and the petitioners in which he 
affirmed his aforesaid desire. Consequently, the petitioners, in their 
magazine Issue dated 21st May, 1994 announced that soon they would be H 
353 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
coming out with the sensational life history of Auto Shankar. Since the 
respondents were afraid that by the said publication, links of many officers 
with the condemned prisoner would be exposed, they not only forced the 
prisoner to write to the Inspector General of Prisons and to the petitioner 
requesting that his life story should not be published but also threatened 
B the petitioners, by their communication dated 15th June, 1994, with legal 
action for black mailing. The petitioners also stated that before they filed 
a writ petition in this Court, they approached the Madras High Court for 
similar relief but no orders were passed by the High Court ll11 the filing 
of the petition. 
C 
The respondents denied pressure on the prisoner and disputed the 
authenticity of the autobiography said to have been written by the prisoner 
as well as authority of the petitioners to publish the same. According to 
them no power of attorney was executed - which has to be done in the 
presence of the prison officials under the Prison Rules - by the prisoner in 
favour of his advocate in connection with publication of the alleged book. . 
D They further stated that on account of petitioner's failure to produce letter 
written by prisoner authorising them to publish autobiography, the High 
Court dismissed the petition. As the publication was likely to tarnish the 
image of persons holding responsible positions in the public Institutions 
under the guise of autobiography they sent the communication dated 15th 
E June, 1994 proposing to take legal action against the petitioners. 
In view of the fact that in a writ petition under Article 32 this Court 
does not go into disputed questions of fact - whether the petitioner has 
indeed written his autobiography and authorised the petitioners to publish 
the same - this Court proceeded on the assumption that the condemned 
F prisoner has neither written his autobiography nor has he authorised the 
petitioner to publish the same in their magazine and considered the follow-
ing questions :-
G 
H 
(1) 
Whether a citizen of this country can prevent another person 
from writing his life-story or biography? Does such un-
authorised writing infringe the .citize

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.