Global Freedom of Expression

Español

R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    July 10, 1994
  • Outcome
    Other
  • Case Number
    1995 AIR 264
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship, Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Ban, Censorship

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The State cannot prevent the publication of an article simply because it may defame the State. Such a prevention would be an unlawful prior restraint. The State’s only recourse, therefore, would be to sue for defamation after the article has been published.


Facts

Petitioners include the editor, associate editor, printer and publisher of a Tamil magazine, Nakkheeran. The respondents include the State of Tamil Nadu, the Inspector General of Prisons, and the Superintendent of Prisons. The petitioners sought to prohibit the respondents from interfering with the publication of an autobiography of a prisoner, Auto Shanker, in Nakkheeran. Shanker was convicted of six murders and sentenced to death. While in jail, Shanker wrote his auto-biography and expressed his wish that this be published in the petitioners’ magazine. Before publishing the autobiography, Nakkheeran announced the publication. Prison officials then forced Shanker to write to the magazine requesting that the auto-biography not be published. Petitioners then brought this action to prevent the respondents from violating the magazine’s and the prisoner’s Freedom of Expression.


Decision Overview

The Court noted the tort of right to privacy which protects, “(1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to prvacy which protects personal property against unlawful governmental invasion.” The Court recognized this as a fundamental right, but noted it was not absolute.

The Court noted several decisions across the globe and raised the question of how relevant these decisions were under the constitution of India. The Court explained that it was important to strike a balance between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy. The Court found that the state and its officials do not have the right to impose prior restraints on the publication of materials that may be defamatory of the state. Therefore, “no such prior restraint or prohibition of publication can be imposed by the respondents upon the proposed publication of the alleged autobiography.” The Court noted that this ruling does not mean that the state cannot sue for defamation after the article is published, only that they cannot place a prior restraint on the publication of the article.

“Applying the above principles, it must be held that the petitioners have a right to publish, what they allege to be the life story/autobiography of Auto Shankar insofar as it appears 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. The remedy of the affected public officials/public figures, if any, is after the publication, as explained hereinabove.”


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression by prohibiting the state from engaging in a prior restraint on speech. The state cannot prevent the publication of potentially defamatory articles; it can only sue after such articles are published.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • India, Gobind v. 1 (1964) 1 SCR 332
  • India, Const. art. 19
  • India, Const. art. 32

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)
  • U.S., N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
  • Ant. & Barb., Section 33-B Public Order Act, 1972
  • U.S., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
  • U.S., Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884 (1992)
  • U.S., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
  • U.S., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
  • Ant. & Barb., Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda, sect. 12

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

India is a common law country. The decision of India’s Supreme Court is binding on India’s lower courts.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback