9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from publishing, broadcasting telecasting the serial "Maveeran Veerappan" and projecting the name, identity and interpretation of M. Veerappan in any form and in any name which relates to M. Veerappan or his life history and events without the plaintiff's written consent. The suit has been laid on the basis that such telecast about the husband of the plaintiff will spoil the identity of her husband Veerappan and also will damage the plaintiff's present life and her children studies in future. It is also her claim that such publication would amount to violation of right to privacy which is available to her, being the wife of the deceased husband. The defendant in the suit, who is the revision petitioner has in fact filed the written statement taking the stand that there is no question of privacy inasmuch as every body know about the life and story of the said deceased Veerappan and therefore it is a matter of public domain. In such circumstances, the privacy concept will not arise. It is also the defence of the defendant that the episode which relates to the life of Veerappan will only receive an understanding and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest of justice, injunction is granted till 26.10.2007. Further arguments will be heard on 26.10.2007. 5. It is admitted across the Bar that this order was passed by the learned First Appellate Judge after hearing both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent at length. On the face of it, it is seen that the learned First Appellate Judge having heard the case in full, has passed a single line order of injunction without assigning any reason except stating that the petitioner's apprehension that her reputation will be ruined, especially in the circumstances when the trial Court has elaborately discussed the arguments by both sides while dismissing the injunction application. It is as against the said order, the defendant in the suit, who was the respondent in CMP before the first appellate Court, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though it is true that an appeal lies against such an order under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, since the order has been passed by the VI Additional Judge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat apart, he would also rely upon the right of privacy. His contention is that as long as Veerappan was live, there was no privacy, because he was having the right to defend by himself. It was only after his death, (Veerappan died on 19.10.2004), the cause of action of privacy in respect of husbands life arose in favour of the plaintiff as well as her daughters and it was her duty to maintain the dignity and decorum of the family since any publication which is derogatory to the name of the husband will certainly affect the children of the plaintiff as well as their future. His further contention is that the First Appellate Judge, while granting injunction has considered the balance of convenience and it was on that basis only an order of injunction was granted. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference. 9. Both the counsel relied on various Judgments to substantiate their respective contention. 10. It is relevant to point out at this stage that as against the impugned order of the First Appellate Judge, the CRP was moved and this Court by an order dated 13.10.2007 has recorded an undertaking given by the learned senior Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner, which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om writing his story or biography? and whether such unauthorised writing infringe the citizen's right to privacy? And also the issue arose in that case about the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In that case, while deciding the issue regarding right to privacy, the Supreme Court has observed that right to privacy arose from the law of Tort which results in damages in case of infringement. The Supreme Court has held that right to privacy is clubbed into two aspects, one is law of Tort wherein the consequential action is for damages resulting from unlawful evasion of privacy and secondly in case of constitutional recognition, wherein the right created against the Government. In paragraph 9 of the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows: The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was recognised. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin '(1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs from the public records, even without his consent or authorisation. But, if they go beyond that and publish his life story, they may be invading his right to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in accordance with law. Similarly, the State or its officials cannot prevent or restrain the said publication. 17. It is relevant to point out that both the learned senior Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent relied upon the same Judgment. A reading of the said Judgment would reveal that right to privacy is enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution under the concept of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As long as right to privacy in right to life is maintained and once this has become public, the question of continuation of that right does not arise and absolutely, there is no difficulty in accepting the same. As far as the present case is concerned, it is admitted that publications have been made in the past 20 years about the life and story of Veerappan and therefore question of retaining privacy is still in controversy. In any event, this matter is to be decided by the Trial Court. 18. The contention of the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution of India, in respect of an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 4 of CPC, against which an appeal lies as per Order 43 of the CPC, has held that High Court cannot be a silent spectator when the person seeking an order of injunction has approached this Court with unclean hands since there is a flagrant violation of equity and justice, powers under Article 227 can be exercised, in spite of the availability of the right of appeal. 22. In yet another case in the case of The Andhra Social and Cultural Association rep. By B. Veeriah General Secretary v. R. Karuppan reported in 2000(2)CTC235 (Judgment delivered by P. Shanmugam, J.), this Court has held that when the order of the lower Court is wholly unsustainable and without jurisdiction, it has to be set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, has in fact, dealt with various judgments of the Division Bench as well as the Supreme Court in the following words: The order passed by the learned judge does not satisfy the requirement of Order 39, Rule 3, CPC. The Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in a series of decisions, have directed the subordinate Courts that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Not less than often, the High Court would be faced with a dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where 'a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge. 26. In Shail (Smt) v. Manoj Kumar and Ors. reported in (2004)4SCC785 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the Judgment in Surya Dev Rai's case has held that even though the jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto history. He has done no more and no less than what has already been done by different organs of the media, national and international. The producer tells his audience without embellishment what in a democracy is the right of the audience and the general public viz., the right to be informed and the right to know, which are vital in a democratic set up. Each and every piece of evidence depicted in this film is a matter of public record and public knowledge. The overall impression that this film would create in a normal and average mind would be a revulsion and abhorrence of the assassination coupled with the resolve that history such as this shall not repeat itself. The fact that film depicts the assassination of former Prime Minster by itself cannot and should not be a ground for rejection, more so, when the entire investigation and the trial of the case if over. The protection of the Constitution does not extend only to fictional depictions of artistic themes. Artists, film makers and play writers are affirmatively entitled to allude to incidents which have taken place and to present a version of those incidents which according to them represents a balanced portrayal of social ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, which reads as follows: 30. As observed in R. Rajagopal's case (Supra) the right to privacy has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin. First the general law of privacy which offers a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and secondly, the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful government invasion. Though the right to privacy can be characterized as a fundamental right as held in R. Rajagopal's case it is not an absolute right. In Time Inc. v. Hill 385 U.S. 374 it was pointed out that in the case of public officials, insofar as their official function is involved, they are substantially without a right to privacy and factual error and content defamatory of official reputation or both, are insufficient for the award of damages for false statements unless actual malice knowledge that the statements are false or reckless disregard of the truth is alleged and proved. In a democratic set up a close and microscopic examination of private lives of public men is the natural consequence of holding of public offices. What is good for a private citizen who does not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondents. The first respondent or the second respondent or both, as the case may be, shall respond to the queries of the appellants in relation to their proposed article to the fax number of the appellants. However, if there is no response to the queries either from the first respondent or the second respondent within 36 hours from receiving such queries, the appellants will be entitled to proceed to publish the proposed article in their bi-weekly. It is true that the press cannot be compelled to also publish the version of the official, about whom the article is written, with reference to the article published against him/her. We, however, feel that it is expected of any responsible member of the press to also indicate the version of the official concerned in their proposed article. 33. In view of the above said legal position and on referring to the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Judge, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order is liable to be set aside. The learned Judge, having heard the interlocutory application, especially in the circumstances when the Trial Court has a detailed discussion elaborately and dismissed the interlocutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
