meaning of article 21(Protection of Life and Personal Liberty)

article 21 states that: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.” This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and
foreigners alike.

Article 21 uses three crucial expressions; those are listed below:

#Right to life, and

#Right to personal liberty.

#Procedure established by law.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,

1994 SCC (6) 632, (Right to Safeguard Privacy of Family Members)

. The suit was filed to prevent an autobiography publication of a prisoner named Shankar, who had
received the death penalty. The state forbade the book from being released because it believed it
contained several instances or assertions that could damage the state's reputation.

CITATION- 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632.

BENCH- B. Jeevan Reddy and S.C. Sen, JJ.

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff- B.D. Sharma

for Respondents/Defendant- A. Mariarputham and Aruna Mathur, Advs

ACTS REFERRED- Constitution of India

Laws involved:

# Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) on The Constitution of India.(The Constitution of India
defines the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to certain restrictions.)

# Article 21, Constitution of India(defines the right to life and personal liberty. As per the court, this
was also to imply the inclusion of the right to privacy.)

# Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (of The Indian Penal Code talk about defamation.)

# Official Secrets Act, 1923

Background of the Case:

. A criminal, Auto Shankar was charged and tried for as many as six murders. He was convicted and
sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu on 31-5-1991 which was confirmed
by the Madras High Court on 17-7-1992. His appeal to this Court was dismissed on 5-4- 1994. It is
stated that his mercy petition to the President of India is pending consideration.

FACTS:
# Gowri Shankar (also known as Auto Shankar) was an infamous serial killer from the region of
Madras.

# Shankar and his gang were found guilty of 6 murders that were committed within the 2 years.

# Shankar was sentenced to death along with his two associates by the session court of
Chengalpattu.

# While he was imprisoned in jail, he wrote his autobiography and expressed his wish that this is
published in the petitioner’s magazine. His wife gave the book to the petitioners (Editor, printer, and
publisher of Nakkheeran , family weekly magazine, and Associate editor of the magazine) to get it
published.

# The auto-biography also included the relationship and friendship of Shankar with the prison
officials and some higher authorities. Some of them are also his partners in crime.

# The Inspector-General of Prisons sent a letter to the petitioners claiming the autobiography to be
false and that the publication of such a book is against the prison rules. The Inspector-General of
Prisons threatened to take legal action if the book gets published because it was apprehended that
the book was defamatory in nature to the staff and prison officials.

# To which the Petitioners filed a written petition against the state for infringing the right to freedom
of speech in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

# There are various issues in front of the Supreme Court which they have to resolve-

# Whether freedom of speech and expression prevails over the right to privacy.

# Whether a government official or the citizen of this country can prevent another person from
writing his life story or biography?

# Does such unauthorized writing infringe the citizen’s right to privacy?

# Whether the freedom of the press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) in the constitution entitles the
press to publish such unauthorized account of citizen’s life and activities and if so to what extent?

# What are the remedies provided by the legislature of India against the infringement of the right to
privacy?

# Whether the prison officials can prevent the publication of the autobiography of a prisoner on the
ground that the prisoner is a detainee and thus have in no position to adopt any legal remedies to
protect his rights?

Arguments by the plaintiff:

# The arguments set forth by the plaintiff were entirely based upon their right to privacy.

# It was argued by the plaintiff that if the book gets published, it will have an adverse effect on the
right to privacy of prison authorities.

# It was also argued that the book contains much information regarding various authorities and
prison management that the plaintiff had no way to check upon.
# They argued that certain statements made in the book were not true at all and hence they are
defamatory to the state and prison authorities.

# A point was raised by the plaintiff that it was not sure whether the book was actually written by
Shankar or not, it was just alleged by the defendants that the book was written by Shankar. During
the pendency of the proceedings, Shankar was hanged, so confirming from him whether he actually
wrote the book or not was not possible.

Arguments by the defendant:

# The arguments set forth by the defendants (Secretary of Home Department of State of Tamil Nadu,
Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, and Superintendent of Prisons (Central Prison), Salem, Tamil
Nadu) were entirely based upon their fundamental right to speech and expression.

# It was argued by the defendants that the Constitution of India provides every individual a
fundamental right to express themselves in the way they like, which is subject to certain restrictions.
But in this case, no restrictions are being violated.

# It was argued that during the case right to privacy was not considered as a fundamental right
therefore freedom of speech and expression shall prevail over the right to privacy.

# It was stated in the argument that since the book was written by Shankar himself and all that he
wrote were the incidents from his life, therefore it is true and so it can not fall under defamation as
truth is one of the exceptions when it comes to the offence of defamation.

# It was also stated by the defendants that the proof that the book was written by Shankar himself is
that it was recorded by the prison authorities that Shankar gave the book to his wife to get it
published. Therefore, it is proved that the book was written by Shankar himself.

suggestion or observation made by a judge(Obiter dicta):

. In this case, the right to privacy was discussed and the Court held that the right to privacy is a
fundamental right that is inferred under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, every
individual has a right to be left alone and so they have a right to try to safeguard their and their
family’s privacy.

. The Hon’ble Court stated that the right to privacy is not explicitly present in the Constitution but its
essence is there in the Constitution and therefore, it needs to be considered and respected.

the reason(Ratio decidendi):

. The book can be published even without getting due authorization from Shankar as this is the right
to freedom and expression to publish a book that does not fall under the category of reasonable
restrictions under Article 19.

. The publishers can’t publish any secret information as that is violative of the right to privacy.

. The state has no right to prevent or stop the publication of the book but they have the remedy to
file a case of defamation if the book contains any secret information that infringes their right to
privacy.

Judgment:
# In the discussed case, Shankar had the freedom to get his biography published because it was not
made will any bad intention and did not include anything false. The publication was only done up to
the extent that there was no violation of any official secrets.

# The right to privacy was not considered as a fundamental right during 1995 and it was not very
well-acknowledged in case laws or legislations. Privacy was not a fundamental right then and hence
this case acknowledged it. This was very important for this principle to develop in article 21.

# Thus, the Supreme Court dealt with a conflict between the freedom of the press and the right to
privacy and held that right to privacy was not considered as a fundamental right during 1995.

aftermath:

# The autobiography was published as it was, without any changes.

CONCLUSION:

As explained earlier by the court that this case revolves around the clash between the right to
freedom of speech given under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy which is a part of right to life
and personal liberty which was given in Article 21 of the Constitution. Both of them are a part of
fundamental rights, both of these fundamental rights are very crucial and form the basic structure of
the constitution and Democracy also. As the court was well aware of that these were the only rights
(article 19 and Article 21) that cannot be suspended during the emergency. The hon’ble apex court
had to keep in mind to give a judgment that did not violate any of the 2 rights. It was crucial to find a
way in which it does not violate the right to freedom of speech of the plaintiff and the right to
privacy of Gowri Shankar. The judges also have to decide whether the prisoner has rights, when in
prison or not. It was a very controversial point that whether the prisoner have legal rights or not.
There was nothing in the Constitution for the prisoner’s right, it was left solely upon the judges’
interpretation of the law, i.e., articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

-11 C CBSE