ARTICLE 19(1)(A)

Right to circulation

Sakal newspaper v. Union of India

• Agreeing to the contentions raised by the petitioner that even a slight increase in the prices or reduction in the pages will affect
the circulation of the newspaper, the Court held that it hampers the freedom to speech and expression as per Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution.

• The court further held that the Act and order also limited the allocation of space of advertisement which in turn reduced the price
of the newspaper thus violating Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.

Bennet Coleman & co. v. Union of India

• the Court noted that freedom of the press was an essential element of Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an express mention of
such freedoms as a special category was irrelevant.

• Free press was to be regarded as an essential element of freedom of expression in general. The Court also observed that
shortage of newsprint could be tackled by fixing the quotas.

• However, direct interference in terms of page limits and other such regulation was not justified. The page limit meant that the
newspapers would either lose economic viability due to reduction in advertisements or be forced to reduce news content.

• This would limit freedom of expression because, in the first case, circulation would drop due to increased costs, and, in the
second, there were quantitative restrictions on content.

• The Court observed that freedom of the press had both quantitative and qualitative elements and, therefore, the quantitative
controls constituted restrictions on freedom of expression.

Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India

• The Supreme Court observed that the government was free to impose taxes which affects the publication of newspapers as it
should be treated as an industry and be subject to taxes.

• The newspapers can be divided into small, medium and large only if it was majorly based on the economic considerations if
there is a reasonable nexus with the respect to the objective of the taxation and free from any kind of arbitrariness.

• The power of taxing should not contravene with the freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution and the limitation on flexibility should also be covered within the reasonable limits.

• Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution defines grounds of reasonable restrictions and public interest is one of the grounds. The
Supreme Court outlined two basic rules:

1. Newspapers also have the right to be benefited from the government services as the other industries, given that they also
contribute some amount of money to the Government of India through taxes.

2. The tax burden should not be excessive.

Right to criticize

Romesh Thappar v State of Madras

• There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that freedom is
ensured by the freedom of circulation.
• Deletion of the word “sedition” … shows that criticism of the Government exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it is not to
be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the press, unless it is such as to undermine the
security of or tend to overthrow the State. … Thus, very narrow and stringent limits have been set to permissible legislative
abridgement of the right of free speech and expression, and this was doubtless due to the realisation that freedom of speech and
of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations.

Kedarnath Singh v state of Bihar

• Government established by law" is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the
Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State

• It must be observed that criticism on political matters is not of itself seditious. The test is the manner in which it is made. Candid
and honest discussion is permitted. The law only interferes when the discussion passes the bounds of fair criticism. More
especially will this be the case when the natural consequence of the prisoner's conduct is to promote public disorder.

• A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so
long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public
disorder.

• criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and
would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

Right to expression beyond national boundaries

Maneka Gandhi v UOI

• the Supreme Court analysed whether Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution was confined to the Indian territory and finally
held that the freedom of speech and expression was not confined to the national boundaries.

Right of the press to conduct interviews

Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India & Ors.

• The Supreme Court held that the right to know news and information regarding administration of the government is included in
the freedom of press.

• This right is not absolute and hence, restrictions can be imposed on it in the interest of the society, and the individual from whom
the press obtains the information.

• In Prabhu Dutt, the court directed the superintendent of Tihar Jail to permit the chief reporter of the Hindustan Time to interview
two death sentence convicts, under Art.19(1)(a) as they were willing to be interviewed.

• Further the Media are the friends of the society so in case where their application has been recently denied by the President,
their interview was important for the Petitioner in order to showcase the reality behind these convictions.

State v Charulata Joshi (1999)

• the Supreme Court granted permission to interview Babloo Srivastava in Tihar Jail but stated that the undertrial prisoner can only
be interviewed or photographed if he expressed his willingness to be interviewed.

Right to court proceedings

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs State of Maharashtra

• the High Court has Jurisdiction to decide if it has Jurisdiction to restrain the publication of any document or information relating to
the trial of a pending suit or concerning which the suit is brought.

• A court of law is a public forum. Through public relations, citizens are convinced that the Court of Justice is impartial and,
therefore, it is necessary that the trial be public and that the publication of the judicial report is not restricted.

• The public builds confidence in the administration of justice. Only in rare exceptional cases may the court hold the hearing
behind closed doors or prohibit the publication of the procedural report while the dispute is pending.

Right to rebuttal

LIC v Manubhai D Shah

• The Court held that freedom of expression includes not just the freedom to circulate one’s views but also the right to defend
them. In recognizing this right, it placed a greater burden on publications made using public money. Thus, the claims of discretion
in both cases was rejected. Where the State rejects content, it is obligated to present reasons that are valid in law. Reasons such
as the content only presents one side of the debate goes against the principle of freedom to express one’s perception about an
event. Therefore, such reasons were held to be invalid.

Right to broadcast

Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana

• It was held that the right of citizens to exhibit films on Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by
Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) which can be curtailed
only under circumstances set out under Article 19(2).

• The right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as newspapers, magazines,
advertisement hoardings, etc. subject to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media.

• The freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by the Supreme Court.

case-The Secretary Minister of Information and Broadcasting vs Cricket Association of Bengal

• The Supreme Court has found that the right to communicate and receive information is a form of the right to freedom of
expression and freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Citizens have the basic right to receive
information and to access television broadcasts for this purpose. Radio waves have been involved in law enforcement and can be
monitored and regulated by government agencies. This restriction was imposed due to the nature of state ownership in relation to
the use of electronic media in relation to restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in accordance with Article 19(2) of the
Constitution.

• The Supreme Court has stated that diversity of opinions, views, and ideas cannot be guaranteed in an environment controlled by
a monopoly, whether it belongs to the state or to another person, group, or organization. “Private broadcasters may be more likely
to infringe upon citizens’ freedom of speech than state-run media, as outlined in the statute. Broadcasting media should be
controlled by the public, not by the government. This mark is implied in Article 19(1) (a)” of the constitution.

Right to fly national flag

Naveen Jindal v Union of India

• Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the
nation.
• the court stated that so long as the expression (of flying a flag) is confined to "nationalism, patriotism and love for motherland",
the use of the National Flag by way of expression of those sentiments would be a fundamental right, however– "The pride of a
person involved in flying the Flag is the pride to be an Indian and that, thus, in all respects to it must be shown. The state may not
tolerate even the slightest disrespect”

• The Court also held that Flag Code is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India and hence it
could not restrict the free exercise of the right of flying the national flag under Article 19(1)(a). However, the Flag Code to the
extent it provides for preserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be followed.

• It was further held that the fundamental right to fly National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to
reasonable restrictions under clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag.

Right to receive information

Right to report legislative proceedings

ARTICLE 19(2)
State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi
● SC said that an article, in order to be banned must have a tendency to excite persons to acts of violence (at page
662-663). The test laid down in the said decision was that the article should be considered as a whole in a fair free liberal spirit
and then it must be decided what effect it would have on the mind of a reasonable reader.
● Defamation: Section 66A does not concern itself with injury to the reputation of an individual. Something may be grossly
offensive and may annoy or be inconvenient to somebody without at all affecting his reputation. It is clear therefore that the
Section is not aimed at defamatory statements at all.
● Incitement to commit an offence: Equally, Section 66A has no proximate connection with incitement to commit an offence.
Firstly, the information disseminated over the internet need not be information which “incites” anybody at all. Written words may be
sent that may be purely in the realm of “discussion” or “advocacy” of a “particular point of view”. Further, the mere causing of
annoyance, inconvenience, danger etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the
Penal Code at all. They may be ingredients of certain offences under the Penal Code but are not offences in themselves. For
these reasons, Section 66A has nothing to do with “incitement to an offence”.
● As Section 66A severely curtails information that may be sent on the internet based on whether it is grossly offensive,
annoying, inconvenient, etc. and being unrelated to any of the eight subject matters under Article 19(2) must, therefore, fall foul of
Article 19(1)(a), and not being saved under Article 19(2), is declared as unconstitutional, the SC said.
● It is well settled by decisions of this Court that in a restriction in order to be reasonable must have a reasonable relation to
the object the Legislation has in view and must not go beyond it. Restrictions, therefore, meant to be in the interest of public order
which have no proximate relationship or nexus with it but can be only remotely or hypothetically connected with it, cannot be
reasonable within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.

Romesh Thapar v State of Madras

Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi

● This case is related with the freedom of the press, in which the petitioner claims the infringement of the fundamental right
to the freedom of speech and expression as conferred under Article 19 clause (1) sub-clause (a) of the Constitution by the Chief
Commissioner of Delhi, in the exercise of the power conferred by section 7 (1) (c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, in
which ordered the editor of the paper (petitioner) to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before publication, till further order, all the
communal matter and news and views about Pakistan.
● The main issue before the Court was whether section 7 (1) (c) which authorizes the imposition of such restriction
regarding the publication of views about Pakistan falls within the reservation of clause (2) of Article 19.
● The main issue before the Court was whether section 7 (1) (c) authorized the right to impose restriction upon publication
falls within the reservation of clause (2) of Article 19. The Court delivered the judgment based on the decision given in Romesh
Thappar v. The State of Madras.
● Regarding public Safety or public order under the impugned Act, the Court held that public Safety means the security of
the Province i.e. “security of the State.” “The State” has been defined under Article 12 of the Constitution which includes, among
other things, the government and the legislature of each of the erstwhile Provinces. In other terms clause (2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution allowed the imposition on the freedom of speech and expression only in cases where offenses against public order
are involved or which aim is to undermine the security of the state or overthrowing it, then it is justified for such imposing
restriction of freedom of speech and expression, nothing less than endangering the state or threatening to overthrow it could
justify the restriction of the freedom of speech and expression. Lastly, the Court allowed the application and prohibition on the
circulation of the journal were quashed.

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India

2. Security of the state and Public Order

Case: State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi

Case: Ramji Lal Modi v State of U.P.

● The Supreme Court of India upheld a man’s conviction for publishing a magazine article that maliciously insulted Muslims.
Ramji Lal Modi published an article in Guarakshak, a magazine focused on cow protection, that was deemed to be intentionally
outraging to Muslims and thus, in violation of Section 295a of the Indian Penal Code. The Court ruled that the restriction to protect
the public order from speech intended to outrage and provoke was constitutionally acceptable.
● The Court found that any insulting expression made with malicious intention against a religion creates a tendency to
public disorder. Thus, according to the Court, it does not matter whether the community in question is moved to actual violence.
The mere utterance by the speaker is enough for prosecution.

Case: Kedarnath v State of Bihar

● The case is related to use of wrong words for the party, Kedarnath singh he was the member of Forward Communist Party
Bihar, he used the word dogs for C.I.D. officers and used the word goondas for the Indian National Congress party, he went on
saying that he believe in revolution, which will come and in the flames of which the capitalists, zamindars and the Congress
leaders of India, who have made it their profession to loot the country, will be reduced to ashes and on their ashes will be
established a Government of the poor and the downtrodden people of India. He also targeted Vinobha Bhave's attempts to
redistribute land.
● Issue was Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are ultra vires in view of Article 19(1)(a) read with
Article 19(2) of the Constitution? And Whether the intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or
incitement to violence is required to constitute the offence of sedition?
● On the question of issue one the Supreme court held that for the security of the state maintenance of law and order is the
very basic consideration which should be taken care of and this involves punishing the offenders committing crime against the
state.
● In democratic nation right to freedom of speech and expression should be fully protected but some restrictions are
necessary for the safety and integrity of the state. Accordingly, the Supreme held that Section 124-A and Section 505 of the Indian
Penal Code was intra vires of the Constitution of India considering Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2).
● On dealing with issue two the court held that both the decisions are conflicting one, if the interpretation of Privy Council
that even without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance of law and order, by the use of words written or spoke
which merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against the Government, the offence of sedition is complete, then such an
interpretation of the sections would make then unconstitutional in view of Art. 19(1)(a) read with clause (2).

Case: Superintendent Central Prisons v Ram Manohar Lohia

● the court stated that “public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquility; it is the absence of disorder involving
breaches of local significance. Disturbance of public order entails disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”.
“Law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three
concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the
smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as
an act may affect public order but not security of the State.”

Case: Dalbir Singh v State of Punjab

● In Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1962), the Court affirmed the proximity-proportionality test in Lohia, while sustaining the
conviction of certain persons for inciting disaffection among the police. The final decision in this case, however – as the Court
pointed out – rested upon the specific context of the police forces being involved; and indeed, the ratio of Dalbir Singh was
expressly limited to the context in question in the subsequent case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962). In that case, a
ban on all demonstrations involving government servants was struck down as being violative of Article 19(1)(a). Rejecting
governmental reliance upon Dalbir Singh, the Court held that the ban encompassed all demonstrations, “however innocent and
however incapable of causing a breach of public tranquillity and [did] not confine itself to those forms of demonstrations which
might lead to that result.”

Case: Narayan Das v State of M.P.

● Concerned a challenge to an order u/s 4 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961, which empowered the government to
declare any newspaper, book or printed document forfeited, if it appeared that the publication questioned the territorial integrity or
frontiers of India in a manner which was or was likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the safety or security of India.
● The book in question was a geography textbook and the government objected on the grounds that the book contained
inaccurate maps of the territorial borders of India.
● The High Court upheld the order of forfeiture passed by the state government.
● However the SC held that the forfeiture was vitiated since the notification failed to state the grounds of the state
government’s opinions and a mere reference to the words of the statute did not fulfill the statutory requirement of setting out
precise grounds for the opinion. The SC further emphasized that grounds must be distinguished from the opinions of the
government.

Case: Gajanan Visheshwar Birju v Union of India

● Supreme Court was dealing with the order of confiscation of books containing the Marxist literature. The Court referring to
the supremacy of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, observed that the Constitution of India permits a
free trade in ideas and ideologies and guarantees freedom of thought and expression, the only limitation being a law in terms of
Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Case: Ramlila Maidan Incident v Union of India

● The case was taken up by the Supreme Court suo moto, when the Government imposed Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and attempted to suppress a peaceful crowd of sleeping protesters in the Ramlila Maidan. This
was followed by an evacuation of the protest ground, at 12:30 pm, using water guns, tear gas etc. which resulted in many injuries
and one death.
● The case discussed the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC, and examined the procedural safeguards which would
have to be followed. It held that in order to pass an order under Section 144, there must be co-existence of material facts, an
imminent threat and the requirement for immediate preventive steps in order to prevent harm. The Court reaffirmed that passing
an order under Section 144 was not violative of the freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. It also held that taking prior
police permission for holding protests would not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
This would fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions, contemplated under Articles 19(2) and 19(3).
● In the present case, the Court held that there was no imminent need to intervene, and therefore the restriction placed by
the imposition of Section 144 was unreasonable, and was unwarrantedly executed. The Court accordingly ordered for criminal
cases to be instituted against both the police and the members of the protest who indulged in destruction of property. It also
ordered disciplinary action against those police personnel who resorted to excessive use of force, and who did not help in the
evacuation of the people from the ground.
● Justice Chauhan in his concurring opinion held that the acts amounted to brutal use of force that were wholly unjustified
under Articles 19 and 21. He also opined that the actions of the police infringed upon the right to privacy. He observed that the
right to life envisaged the right to sleep peacefully as well, and any unjustified intrusion would amount to an invasion of privacy,
which he recognized to be an essential facet of the right to life and human dignity.

3. Sedition

Case: Kedarnath v State of Bihar

4. Friendly relations with foreign states

5. Incitement of an offense

Case: State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi

6. Prior restraint

Case: Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi

Case: R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (Autoshankar case)
● This case dealt with questions concerning the freedom of press vis-à-vis the right to privacy. The Petitioners ran a
magazine, which announced that they would be publishing Auto Shankar’s autobiography, which reportedly revealed his
connections with several IAS, IPS and other officials. Auto Shankar was at that time a prisoner convicted of several murders. The
Inspector General of Prisons wrote a letter requesting the Petitioners to refrain from publishing the autobiography on several
grounds, including that the autobiography was not authentic.
● The Petitioners approached the Supreme Court to protect their right to publication. The Supreme Court ruled that the
Petitioners had the right to publish the autobiography, even without the prisoner’s consent, to the extent it was based on public
records and noted that the State could not impose prior restrictions on the likelihood of autobiography being defamatory; a remedy
for defamation would only arise post publication. The Court also discussed the right to privacy in some detail, referencing US and
British jurisprudence in addition to Indian precedent, and concluded that the implicit right to privacy flowing from Article 21 could
be limited in case a public controversy was voluntarily raised by the person whose right to privacy was said to be infringed or in
case the publication of information was based on facts forming part of the public record. However, this rule was subjected to
further limitations in the interest of decency under Article 19(2). The right to privacy was made inaccessible to public officials for
acts and conduct relevant to discharge of their public duties, unless false statements were made with reckless disregard for the
truth or were malicious and the occasion for an action furthering the right to privacy would arise only subsequent to a violation, not
preemptively.

Case: K.A. Abbas v Union of India

● The Supreme Court of India upheld restrictions on public exhibition under Cinematograph Act, 1952, and rejected a
petition that challenged the Act’s powers of censorship. After the petitioner’s film was denied an unrestricted viewing certificate
unless he removed a scene deemed unsuitable for children, he petitioned that his right to free expression had been violated by
prior censorship the arbitrary exercise of the powers granted in the Act. The Court ruled that prior censorship fell within the
reasonable restrictions permitted on free expression, and that the Act was sufficiently clear to avoid arbitrary exercise of the
powers therein.

Case: Midday Multimedia Ltd. V Mushtaq Moosa Tarani (Black Friday case)
● HC postponed the right to circulate a film based on the bombay blasts of 1993 till the TADA court delivered its verdict.
● Some of the bomb blast accused had moved the HC for an injunction against the release of the film on the ground that the
trial court judgement could be prejudiced by the film which allegedly portrayed the accused as terrorists and ISI agents.
● The order of pre-censorship was upheld by the apex court. The ban, albeit temporary, killed abrillian and chilling film. The
evidence had already been concluded in the case and only the judgment was awaited.
● On what basis could it be be presumed that a TADA judge trained in taking judicial decisions based on the evidence
before him could be swayed by the contents of the film which is a sad confidence we have instilled in our judiciary

Case: Zee News v Navjot Sandhu

● The Delhi court passed an exparte injunction restraining the telecast of a film reconstructing the terrorist attack on the
parliament on 13 december 2001 without the prior permission of the trial court.
● The injunction was passed at the instance of the persons who were prosecuted in the case.
● The trial was over and the judgment was about to be pronounced.
● The apex court vacated the injunction stating that there was no justification for the high court to have stayed the telecast.

7. Testing reasonableness of restriction

Case: V.G. Row v State of Madras

● It was held that in deciding the reasonableness or otherwise of the restrictions imposed by law both the substantive as
well as the procedural provisions of the law must be examined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIVACY
Introduction
Privacy
Privacy and Right to Free Speech

Modern media and Privacy

Case: K.S. Puttuswamy v Union of India
● Issues- whether privacy is a fundamental right and validity of judgment in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh
● We consider state and individuals as well who can violate someone’s privacy
● As there is no law non state actors can also infringe someone’s privacy
● Cannot restrict government completely if government is acting as per the laws

International treaties

Art. 12 of UDHR, 1948

Art. 17 of ICCPR, 1966

Art. 8 of European Convention of Human Rights, 1950

Evolution of Privacy US & UK

Case: Albert (Prince) v Strange

● Prince and queen made some etchings (engravings) on metal. In order to get the copy they gave it to publishing houses.
● One employee of the publishing house made a copy of it it without permission to sell it and make money
● Prince went to the court and demanded injunction which was granted as it was the property of prince and there was a
breach of confidence
● In earlier days property was considered within the concept of privacy

Case: Roe v Wade

● The case is in regards o aborion law. Before this case there was no particular right to abortion
● This case was overruled by the Texas heartbeat act and senate bill
● Only when the woman’s life was at risk abortion was allowed before this case
● Right to personal choice and liberty-personal choice of women was ignored due to Texas heartbeat act and senate bill

Case: Kaye v Robertson -trespass and malicious falsehood

● The case of an actor who met with an accident and was unable to give an interview. One reporter entered the hospital and
tried clicking pictures of the actor without permission
● The actor went to the court for injunction. Injunction was provided on the ground for trespass and falsehood
● Right to privacy was not a significant right before this

Case: Campbell v MGN(minor group newspaper) Ltd.

● Capbell was an actress and a drug addict. When she was coming out of rehabilitation, her pictures were clicked and
published by a reporter without permission
● Campbell went to a lower court on the grounds of right to privacy and the decision was on her favor
● MGN appealed and the decision was reversed on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression
● Later the case went to the house of lords and the decision was again reversed on the favor of Campbell stating Article 8
and 10 of the European council of human rights

Law of Privacy in India

a. Surveillance, Search and seizure

Case: Kharak Singh v State of U.P.

● The Supreme Court of India declared the relevant provisions that allowed police to make domiciliary visits to ‘habitual
criminals’ or individuals likely to become habitual criminals as unconstitutional. The police would visit Kharak Singh’s house at odd
hours, often waking him up from his sleep. The Court reasoned that the visits infringed the petitioner’s right to life, which can only
be restricted by law and not executive orders such as the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. However, the Court rejected the
petitioner’s claim that the shadowing of habitual criminals infringed his right to privacy because this right was not recognized as a
fundamental right under India’s Constitution.
● The latter part of the judgment has now been overruled in the August 2017 landmark decision Puttaswamy v. India in
which a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held unanimously that the right to privacy was a fundamental right under the
Indian Constitution

Case: PUCL v Union of India

● The Supreme Court of India held that Indian voters have a right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution to obtain
information about political candidates. The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) challenged the validity of a 1951 law, which
stated that political candidates were not bound to disclose any information not required under the law. The Court reasoned that the
availability of basic information about the candidates enables voters to make an informed decision and also paves the way for
public debates on the merits and demerits of candidates.

b. Privacy of Prisoners

Case: R.Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu

● The Supreme Court of India ruled that a magazine had a right to publish an autobiography written by a prisoner, even
without his consent or authorization. Prison officials attempted to prevent the magazine from publishing the autobiography, by
forcing the prisoner to request that the auto-biography was not published. The Court explained that it was important to strike a
balance between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy, and found that the state and its officials do not have the right to
impose prior restraints on the publication of materials that may be defame the State.

c. Medical records

Case: Mr. X v Hospital Z

● In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the right to confidentiality of an HIV(+) patient. The Appellant was diagnosed as
HIV(+) after he attempted to donate blood at the Respondent hospital. This information was disclosed by the Respondent and as a
result, the Appellant’s marriage was called off and he was ostracised by his relatives and community. He filed an appeal on the
grounds that disclosure of his HIV(+) status by the Respondent-Hospital was violative of medical ethics pertaining to confidentiality
and also infringed upon his right to privacy under Article 21.
● The Court referred to a range of jurisprudence on the subject including the medical ethics guidelines in India and Britain to
analyse whether the Appellant had a right to confidentiality regarding his HIV(+) status; Indian matrimonial laws to interpret the
rule of confidentiality in the context of marriage; Indian and American case law on right to privacy; and the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) which makes it an offence to spread dangerous infectious diseases. The Court noted that the Respondent’s disclosure
did not violate the rule of confidentiality or the Appellant's right to privacy because they were under a legal duty to make such
disclosure. Further, the Appellant himself was under a moral as well as a legal duty to disclose his venereal disease under
matrimonial and penal laws, failing which he would be criminally liable. The Court observed that disclosure was permitted in the
public interest. Further, the Court read the right to a healthy life into the right to life and noted that in case of conflict between the
right to privacy and right to health of another, the latter would prevail as right to privacy envisaged under Article 21 was not
absolute and could be restricted on grounds of public interest and the right of another to be informed.
● Right of Privacy may, apart from contract, also arise out of a particular specific relationship which may be commercial,
matrimonial, or even political.... Doctor-patient relationship, though basically commercial, is, professionally, a matter of confidence
and, therefore doctors are morally and ethically bound to maintain confidentiality. In such a situation, public disclosure of even true
private facts may amount to an invasion of the Right of Privacy which may sometimes lead to the clash of [a] person's "right to be
let alone" with another person's right to be informed.

d. Privacy of Rape victims

Case: State of Punjab v Ramdev Singh

● Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offenses punishable. Printing or publishing name of
any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C
or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished keeping in view the social object of preventing social
victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated.