9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to Privacy 2. Maintainability of Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 3. Interim Injunction 4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 Detailed Analysis: 1. Right to Privacy: The core issue revolves around the plaintiff's claim for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from telecasting a serial about her deceased husband, Veerappan, without her consent, asserting it would violate her right to privacy. The defendant countered that Veerappan's life story is public knowledge, thus negating the privacy claim. The judgment referenced R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., where the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. However, this right diminishes when the individual has already been in the public eye. The court noted that Veerappan's life had been widely publicized for over two decades, thus the plaintiff's privacy claim was not maintainable. The court emphasized that privacy rights must be balanced with the public's right to information, especially when the information is already in the public domain. 2. Maintainability of Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: The defendant filed the revision petition under Article 227, challenging the interim injunction granted by the first appellate Judge. The plaintiff argued that an effective remedy of appeal was available under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, and thus the revision petition under Article 227 was not maintainable. However, the court noted that the revision petitioner had also filed an application to convert the revision into a C.M.A., acknowledging the procedural aspect. The court highlighted its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to intervene in cases where lower courts pass orders without proper reasoning or jurisdiction. 3. Interim Injunction: The trial court had initially dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, stating that the telecast would not cause any social stigma to the plaintiff and her daughters. However, the first appellate Judge granted an interim injunction without detailed reasoning, merely stating that the plaintiff's apprehension needed protection. The High Court criticized this one-line order for lacking substantive reasoning, especially when the trial court had provided a detailed discussion. The High Court underscored the necessity for lower courts to pass well-reasoned orders, particularly in sensitive matters. 4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227: The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction under Article 227, citing several precedents where the High Court intervened to correct lower court orders that were unsustainable or without jurisdiction. The judgment referenced Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, emphasizing that the High Court's supervisory power is discretionary and should be exercised to correct errors that could not be rectified later. The court concluded that the first appellate Judge's order was perverse and warranted interference under Article 227. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the interim injunction granted by the first appellate Judge and directed the appellate court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The court recorded an undertaking from the defendant that the tele-serial would not depict the personal life of the plaintiff and her daughters but would be based on public records and field information. The judgment underscores the balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to information, the necessity for reasoned judicial orders, and the High Court's supervisory role under Article 227.
|
