Summary of Landmark judgment

Case: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu



Date of Order / Judgment: 7 October 1994

Bench: Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Justice S.C. Sen

Background:

R. Rajagopal, a publisher, sought to publish the autobiography of a convicted murderer, who was serving a prison sentence in Tamil Nadu. The book contained sensitive details about the convict’s life, including aspects related to the crimes he committed. However, the State authorities intervened, asserting that the autobiography could not be published, as it would potentially reveal connections between the convict and certain influential people, and might also infringe upon the convict’s right to privacy. The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the publication was a form of free speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The case raised crucial questions about the balance between the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to privacy (implicitly guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution). The petitioners argued that the autobiography, being part of the convict's personal narrative, should be allowed to be published, whereas the State claimed that the autobiography could jeopardize the convict's privacy rights.

Issues

  • 1. Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) can override an individual's right to privacy?
  • 2. To what extent can an individual’s right to privacy be infringed upon when they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public domain?

Observations:

  • • The Court emphasized that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a right "to be let alone" and includes the right to safeguard personal matters such as family, marriage, procreation, and education, among others.
  • • The Court noted that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute. This right must be balanced with other rights, including the right to privacy, especially when the content involves personal matters that the individual has not voluntarily made public.
  • • The Court highlighted that if information about a person has entered the public domain, then the individual’s right to privacy may not extend to that information. However, if the information is not public, its disclosure without consent would violate privacy rights.
  • • The Court acknowledged that if an individual, such as a public figure or a convict who has participated in a high-profile case, voluntarily thrusts themselves into public controversy, they may lose some of their privacy rights in relation to that public exposure.

Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of R. Rajagopal and allowed the publication of the autobiography, but with certain limitations. The Court held that the right to privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and cannot be violated without consent. 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 among other matters. However, the Court also recognized that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) should be protected, particularly in cases where the information is a matter of public concern or in the public domain.

The Court stated that the publishers were free to publish the autobiography of the convict, but only to the extent that the content was already in the public domain. Any private, sensitive information that did not pertain to public matters could not be published without the convict’s consent, as doing so would infringe upon his right to privacy.

The judgment in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu laid down an important precedent on the intersection of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech and expression. It established that while citizens have a right to freely express themselves, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the individual’s right to privacy, especially where the latter concerns personal matters that have not been publicly disclosed.