Tag: #Freedomofspeech

Case Number

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22nd June 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 613 of 1965. Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1965, decided on the 6th day of September 1965.

Equivalent Citation

1966 AIR 424 1966 SCR (1) 702.

Bench

• Hon’ble Justice K. Subba Rao.
• Hon’ble Justice K.N Wanchoo.
• Hon’ble Justice J.C Shah.
• Hon’ble Justice S.M Sikri.
• Hon’ble Justice V. Ramaswami.

Decided On

06/09/1965

Introduction

The law on the rights of detainees has been a developing one. It involves the most extreme disgrace that a nation like India doesn’t have classified laws on the rights of prisoners. There is additionally no thorough regulation to manage prisoners’ privileges and direct their lead while in jail. Notwithstanding, the legal executive of the nation has given due acknowledgement to the convicts and held their fundamental rights time once more. Without exhaustive regulation, it has figured out how to start trends and standards maintaining the different privileges of detainees that guide as well as tie every one of the courts in India.

Brief Facts

Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri was kept by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 30(1)(b) of the Protection of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay Region Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the safeguard of India, public security, and support of the public request. With the consent of the public authority, Sanzgiri composed a book in Marathi named “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The High Court passed judgment on investigating the book’s chapter-by-chapter guide and reasoned that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to teach individuals and disperse information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request The High Court of Bombay held that the request for confinement didn’t control Sangir’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his detainment. The State of Maharashtra pursued against the High Court’s organization, The Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, which regulates the particulars of Sanzgirt’s detainment, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of jail for distribution. Be that as it may, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t control the conveying of jail books for distribution.

Issues before the Court

Whether the High Court’s choice that Sanzgiri’s book was simply of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the guard of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request was right, and whether Sanzgini’s social equality and freedoms were controlled by the request for confinement?

Arguments

The request passed by the High Court was right, and the appeal fizzled and was excused.

The High Court decided to survey the book’s chapter-by-chapter list and inferred that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to instruct individuals and scatter information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias against the guard of India, public wellbeing, or support of the public request. The High Court of Bombay held that the request for detainment didn’t control Sanzgari’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement.

The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which directs the particulars of Sanzgini’s confinement, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. Nonetheless, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t direct the conveying of jail books for distribution. Whether or not this standard applies to the conveying of jail books for distribution might emerge on the off chance that a suitable condition is forced limiting the freedom of an accused in this.

The decision of the Court

1. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been kept by the Public authority of Maharashtra under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Safeguard of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the protection of India, public wellbeing and support of the public request, has composed, with the consent of the said Government, a book in Marathi under the title “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The learned Adjudicators of the High Court who had gone through the chapter-by-chapter guide of the book offered their viewpoint on the book subsequently:
   
   “We are satisfied that the manuscript book deals with the theory of elementary particles objectively. The manuscript does not purport to be a research work, but it purports to be a book written to educate the people and disseminate knowledge regarding quantum theory”.
   
2. The book is, thusly, simply of logical interest and it couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public security, or upkeep of public request. In September 1964, the accused applied to the public authority of Maharashtra looking for consent to send the composition out of the prison for distribution yet the Government by its letter, dated Walk 27, 1965, dismissed the solicitation He again applied to the Administrator, Arthur Street Jail, for authorization to send the original copy out and that also was dismissed. From that point, he documented a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution In the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay for guiding the Province of Maharashtra to allow him to convey the composition of the book composed by him for its possible distribution. The Public authority of Maharashtra in the counter-sworn statement didn’t affirm that the distribution of the said book would be biased to the objects of the Protection of India Act, yet asserted that the Public authority was not legally necessary to allow the accused to distribute books while in detainment. The High Court of Bombay held that the social equality and freedoms of a resident were not the slightest bit checked by the request for detainment and that it was generally open to the revenue to carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement. It further held that no standards were disallowing an accused from sending a book outside the prison to get it distributed. In that view, the High Court guided the Public authority to permit the composition book to be sent by the accused to his significant other for its possible distribution. The Province of Maharashtra has favoured the current allure against the expressed request of the Great Court.
   
3. The conflicts of the took in Extra Specialist General might be momentarily expressed thus: When an individual is kept he loses his opportunity; he is as of now not a liberated person and, consequently, he can practice just such honours as are given on him by the request for confinement. The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which manages the details of the primary respondent’s confinement, doesn’t give him any honour or right to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. On the side of his conflict, he depends upon the perceptions of Des, 1, as he then was, in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras, wherein the learned Appointed authority has communicated the view, with regards to principal privileges, that assuming a resident loses the opportunity of his individual because of a legal detainment, he can’t guarantee the privileges under Craftsmanship. 19 of the Constitution as the evenings revered in the said article are just the characteristics of a liberated person.
   
4.  Mr. Garg learned counsel for the accused, raised before us the accompanying two focuses: (1) a limitation of the nature forced by the Public authority on the accused must be made by a request given by the suitable Government under Cls. (f) and (h) of sub(1) of R. 30 of the Guard of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the Remnants, and that too in severe consistency with s. 44 of the Guard of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Demonstration, and that as the reprimanded limitation was neither made by such a request nor did it consent to S. 44 of the Demonstration, it was an unlawful limitation on his freedom; and sub(2) neither the confinement request nor the states of detainment which administered the primary respondent’s confinement empowered the Public authority to keep the expressed respondent from sending his original copybook out of the jail for distribution, and consequently, the request for the Public authority dismissing the said respondent’s solicitation in such manner was unlawful.

Conclusion

Prisoners don’t stop being people when put in bars. The Supreme Court and numerous different courts in India have repeated this situation in a few cases with the goal that detainees don’t turn into a casualty themselves. Furthermore, are furnished with a legitimate rehabilitative climate to help them improve and turn out to be better creatures. It is officeholder upon the Focal and State legislatures to not just furnish the detainees with empathetic circumstances professionally yet additionally teach them about their privileges, so it isn’t manhandled by the strong inside the prison.

One might say that the legal executive of the nation plays a vital impact in defending the privileges of detainees at whatever point the regulative and leader have failed. It has gone about as the deliverer of the convicts and maintained their essential freedoms endlessly time once more. It has completely practised its abilities through legal activism and has more than once concocted new cures and instruments to safeguard the common freedoms to life and individual freedom. Be that as it may, much actually should be finished. In such a manner, the wide dissemination of basic liberties accessible to prisoners, immense exposure of prisoners’ rights in the media, and corner-to-corner observation in prison could be a portion of the keys to maintaining the freedoms of prisoners and guaranteeing their place of refuge in the prison.

This case analysis is done by Pranita Dhara, a student of Lloyd Law College.

RELATED TO THIS BLOG:

A Legal Take on Safeguards of Liberty in India

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Safeguard Of Liberty
3.	Essential elements in Safeguards of Liberty
4.	Safeguards the protected liberty of Indian citizens
5.	Right in Safeguard of Liberty
6.	Landmark Judgment
7.	Conclusion

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom – and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech”

By Benjamin Franklin

Introduction

Safeguards of Liberty in India was to protect people who are suffering and aged 16 or above 16 and also who needed it. Liberty Protection Safeguards(LPS) care for those people and treated their mental capacity with the proper agreement. In India basic right of the human being is liberty, the right to live life without fall of dignity. 

Every Individual who could have a Liberty Protection Safeguards authorization incorporate those with dementia, mental imbalance, and learning handicaps who come up short on the pertinent limit.

The Liberty Protection Safeguards were presented in the Mental capacity (amendment) Act 2019 and will supplant the Hardship of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) framework. The Liberty Protection Safeguards will convey further developed results for individuals who are or who should be denied their liberty. The Liberty Protection Safeguards have been intended to put the privileges and wishes of those individuals at the focal point of all dynamics on the hardship of liberty.

The liberty protection safeguards are wanted to come into force in April 2022.[1]

Safeguard Of Liberty

Liberty is the most valuable thing for an individual and viable advances are required for its safeguards. From days of yore, there is a tussle between the state’s power and individuals’ liberties. An individual appreciates more freedoms assuming that the power of the state is abridged. Liberty can’t exist in a domineering state. Prof. Laski calls attention to specific strides for protecting freedom. “Opportunity, right off the bat, won’t be accomplished for the mass of men clear under unique certifications” and it can’t “exist in that frame of mind of honor”. Besides, “extraordinary honor is incongruent with opportunity”. Thirdly, “liberty can’t be acknowledged in that frame of mind in which the privileges of some rely on the joys of others”. Fourthly, “What is the state’s fundamental duty for safeguards liberty”.

Essential elements in Safeguards of Liberty

• The democratic form of Government

Democracy system is a type of govern­ment where everyone has an offer in the organization. Just democrat; states can give an amiable environment to the turn of events: human character. It is helpful for the full pleasure in liberty.

The Foundation of a majority rule framework is a fundamental shield of freedom. Both liberty and a democratic rules system are valuable to each other. We can’t imagine a majority rules government without the presence of common, financial, political, and individual freedom. Moreover, without even a trace of the right to opportunity, there can be no genuine majority rules government. Liberty is more secure and safer in the Majority rules system than in some other type of government. Popularity-based government is the public authority of individuals though in different types of government (like Outright Government and Fascism) all powers are focused and brought together under the control of one individual or a gathering of people. The individual in power or a gathering of people in power can’t endure his or their analysis. The nature of A majority rules system inverse gatherings is given due regard in Majority rules government. The contrary gatherings structure the public authority after the disappointment of the decision party. Analysis of the public authority is invited in Majority rule government.

• Fundamental Rights

There should be a reasonable and unambiguous rundown of essential fundamental rights in the Constitution. Individuals should be con­versant with their freedoms and the public authority should know about the limita­tion of abilities. These freedoms are justiciable and any demonstration that contradicts the arrangements of the Constitution can be announced ultra vires.

One of the vital strategies for safeguarding liberty is to consolidate a sanction of central privileges and opportunities in the constitution of the State. Alongside it, legal insurance ought to be given privileges. They safeguard our freedom to an exceptionally extraordinary degree. These basic freedoms likewise restrict the power of the state. In the presence of crucial freedoms, the state can’t meddle in that frame of mind of individual life. Without a trace of key freedoms freedom of the individual is never out of risk and without freedom improvement of human character is preposterous.

• Separation of Power

The powers of the public authority ought to be isolated among the chief, law-making body, and legal executive. This will help in forestalling any organ of the public authority. To turn out to be outright. Each organ of the public authority. Will work in its system. As indicated by popular French Researcher Montesquieu, detachment of abilities is a fundamental condition for pleasure in the freedom and the nations where there is the partition of abilities, individuals appreciate more freedom. This interaction is finished through the utilization of balanced governance. Lord  Acton believes that “Power taints an; outright power undermines totally.” Power has an internal pattern for abuse and power ought to go about as a check to drive.

• Responsible Government

An administration framed by the representa­tives of individuals will undoubtedly be capable. Any error concerning the public authority will sound its mark of the end and the resistance will exploit it. A bi-party framework with solid resistance will guarantee essential safeguards for liberty.

• Love for Liberty

For the security of freedom, individuals ought to have limitless love for freedom. On the off chance that it is thus, individuals might never want to lose their freedom and will be ready to make each penance for its insurance. During the opportunity battle, lakhs of Indians made penances of their lives as they went to gallows and prisons for the fulfilment of opportunity for their homeland.

• Rule of law

The idea of Law and order implies all people are equivalent under the watchful eye of law and regulation. This law and Regulation see no difference between the rich and poor, the high and low.

The rule of law is laid out in Britain, the U.S.A. also, and India. The idea of Law and order implies that all individuals are equivalent under the steady gaze of regulation. Regulation makes no separation between rich and poor, the high the low. All individuals ought to be under similar regulations and limited by similar sorts of commitments. Nobody ought to be above regulation. No honours will be given to an individual having a place with a specific class nor will there be any arrangement for insusceptibility. No individual will be rebuffed or saved in care for quite a while until and except if his wrongdoing is demonstrated.

• Constitution

Just the constitution limits the power of the state. It sets out specific obstructions and these hindrances are not to be crossed by the state while utilizing its power. For the most part, the constitution is acknowledged as the incomparable law of the nation, and if any organ of the public authority disregards any arrangement of the const., that act is pronounced unlawful by the courts. In brief, every organ of the public authority. Will undoubtedly work inside the structure of the constitution and this way the constitution safeguards the liberties of individuals.

• Independent Judiciary

There should be a free and fair judiciary for the assurance and conservation and individual liberty. The judiciary should be free of chief and authoritative control.

The autonomous, strong, and fair-minded legal executive is the greatest defender of freedom. Thus, arrangements ought to be made to keep the legal executive free. Assuming that the Legal executive is subordinate to the Leader or on the other hand on the off chance that it isn’t liberated from the impact of the Chief, it can not grant equity nor can it safeguard the major freedoms of man. In socialist nations or in nations that have Fascism, basic privileges are given to individuals, yet the Legal executive isn’t liberated from the impact of the Chief. In such nations, the safeguards and security of central privileges, constitution, and freedom aren’t exactly imaginable and freedom becomes simply a joke. Here, just keen and fair-minded people ought to be delegated as judges. They ought to be paid significant compensation and adequate annuity after retirement. Their residency ought to be long.

Safeguards the protected liberty of Indian citizens

• Right to life and individual freedom

 Article 21[2] gives that no individual will be denied his life or individual freedom besides as per technique laid out by regulation.

• Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a writ that is accustomed to bringing an individual who has been kept or detained under the watchful eye of a court. This writ is utilized to safeguard the liberty of a person.

• Legal Review

 Legal Survey is the force of the legal executive to survey the activities of the leader and authoritative parts of government. This power is utilized to guarantee that the public authority doesn’t abuse the central privileges of residents.

• Partition of power

Division of Abilities is a successful protection for individual freedom. The blend of a chief, administrative or legal powers in a similar individual or set of people could bring about the maltreatment of abilities and loss of individual freedom.

• Right to constitutional remedies

The Constitution accommodates different cures, for example, writs, orders, and headings that can be utilized by residents to authorize their central freedoms.

• Freedom of speech and expression

The right to speak freely of discourse and articulation is a principal right ensured by the Constitution of India. It permits residents to offer their viewpoints unreservedly unafraid of oversight or discipline.

• Right to information

 The Right to Information Act, of 2005[3] accommodates admittance to data held by open specialists. This right permits residents to consider public specialists responsible and guarantees straightforwardness in administration.

Right in Safeguard of Liberty

Article 5[4] says that safeguards are for anyone who is being arrested or detained. It is for all the people who suffer and those who are detained those people are sent to judge. Detention can be challenged if it is lawful. Victims get compensation for unlawful detention.

Some Restriction

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[5] it was contended that the ‘procedure established by law’ implied equivalent to ‘due process of law’. Both the terms are equivalent and similar security is being given in both nations with a distinction that ‘due process of law’ covers considerable and procedural regulation yet ‘methodology laid out by regulation’ covers just procedural law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[6], Chandrachud J. said that the system must be simple, fair and sensible, not whimsical, abusive, or erratic and Krishna Iyer J. said that the ‘law’ signifies sensible regulation and no established piece.

Landmark Judgment

This idea originally came up on account of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[7]. In this situation, the solicitor was confined under Preventive Detainment Act. He tested this in the court that it be violative of his right to opportunity of development, which is the quintessence of individual freedom under Article 21[8]. The Supreme Court gave the significance of individual freedom in an extremely tight sense. It said that individual freedom incorporates just the actual opportunity of the body like independence from capture or unjust repression. It likewise said that the term ‘law’ is the state-made regulation as it were. The High Court held that Article 19[9] has no association and relevance to Article 21.

On account of Satwant Singh Sahney v. Identification Officer[10], the option to travel abroad is remembered as ‘personal liberty’ and no individual can be denied his entitlement to go besides according to the technique laid out by regulation. Refusal to give the identification of the individual with practically no reasons allotted for it adds up to an unapproved hardship of individual freedom as given under Article 21.

There was another instance of the State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang[11]. In this situation, it was seen that the detainee does not stop being an individual not having key privileges. The right to compose a book and get it distributed by a detenu is his major right and its forswearing without the power of regulation disregarded Article 21.

Conclusion

Every one of the previously mentioned focuses addresses the manners by which we can defend a singular’s liberty. These are just conceivable when every single individual no matter what their situation in the general public no matter what their positions no matter what component can make discrimination attempts to guarantee that freedom as a guideline or element pervasive in the general public isn’t compromised. Freedom is an essential element that guarantees that the Majority rule government in space wins. On the off chance that it falls flat, that Democracy is no Democracy and acts as a joke to freedom all in all.

---

Endnotes:

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liberty-protection-safeguards-factsheets/liberty-protection-safeguards-what-they-are
2. Constitution of India, Article 21
3. Right to Information Act, of 2005, https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf
4. Constitution of India, Article 5
5. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
7. ibid 5
8. ibid 2
9. Constitution of India, Article 19
10. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, 1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
11. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, 1966 AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702

This article is authored by Pranita Dhara, a student of Lloyd Law College.

S.no	Contents
1.	Facts of the Case
2.	Issues of the case
3.	Rationale
4.	Judgment
5.	Generalis Specialibus Non-Derogant

Year

1958

Case No.

122 of 1958

Equivalent Citation

1959 AIR 396

Date of Judgment

12/12/1958

Court

The Supreme Court of India

Bench

Chief Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Justice Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Justice K. Subbarao, Justice K.N. Wanchoo.

Introduction

Certain privileges are being provided to the parliament collectively as well as individually so that they can effectively discharge their functions without any kind of hesitation. Article 105[1] deals with the power and privileges of the house of parliament whereas Article 194[2] deals with the power and privileges of the house of Legislators. The case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others[3] not only deals with the conflict between the legislator and the court but also between the legislator and a citizen. In the Judgment part of this case, it was held by the court of law that the legislative assembly does have the power to regulate the publication of debate and other proceedings. However, this act might curtail an individual’s Fundamental Rights i.e. Right to Freedom of Speech[4], in this case, analysis, we will critically analyze why the court has given such implications and what is the validity of such implications.

Facts of the Case

In the case, the petitioner M.S.M. Sharma was a journalist at the “Searchlight” which was an English Newspaper operated in Patna, Bihar. On May 30, 1957, one of the members of the Bihar Legislative assembly whose name was, Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha delivered a speech in Bihar Legislative Assembly in his speech he made some statements regarding Mahesh Prasad Singh that he was the one who guided the Chief Minister in the selection process of the other ministers and he also cited certain instances of favouritism. Further, it was alleged by Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha in his speech that ministers were not given the proper ministries to which they were entitled and for which the conventional process should have been followed for the appointment. Many other instances regarding corruption were mentioned by him in the speech, he took the example of the District Judge who was only transferred from one place to another but was not discharged as per the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court, Bihar. Further many other instances were discussed by him which were regarding the corruption and criticism of the prevailing government.

The Speaker of the assembly held that the part of the speech made by Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha was objectional and directed it to be expunged. However, no specific directions were given to the Press, the speaker meant by saying this that the publication of the part of the speech which criticized the government must not be made.
On May 31, 1957, the part of the speech that was expunged by the speaker and was directed by him that publication of these parts must not be done, was published by the newspaper “Searchlight”. On 10th June 1957 Nawal Kishore Sinha, a member of the state legislative assembly questioned the same in the assembly. The matter was soon transferred to the Privilege Committee. After the evaluation of the entire facts for almost after more than a year on 18th August 1958 M.S.M. Sharma was summoned before the Privilege Committee and was asked to reply as to why an action against him must not be taken as he has done the breach of subsisting privileges. Further, the proceeding regarding the breach of privilege was initiated against the editor. M.S.M. Sharma moved to the court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for quashing the said proceeding and he raised the question was whether the said privilege under Article 194 was subject to the Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a)[5].

Issues of the case

1. Does the legislative assembly have a power under Article 194(3) of the Indian Constitution to prohibit the publication of the statement which is being done publicly in the house?
2. Do the legislative assembly privileges under Article 194 of the Indian Constitution prevail over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution specifically Freedom of Speech and Expression?[6]

Rationale

Arguments from the Petitioner’s side:

• The notice issued by the committee and the proceeding initiated by them violates his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution as well as it violates his personal life and liberty assured under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• They further argued that as the petitioner of the newspaper petitioner is entitled to Freedom of the Press.
• The notice which was issued by the privilege committee was invalid as the Chief Minister of Bihar was the chairman of the Privilege Committee.

Arguments from the Respondent’s side:

• The respondent relied on the Article 194 of the Indian Constitution.
• They argued that the state legislative assembly can exercise similar powers, privileges, and immunities as the British House of Commons, where the proceedings of the assembly cannot be published.
• They further argued that the part of the speech which was directed to be expunged cannot be published by anyone under any circumstances as it was expressly prohibited.
• If a such publication is being made which was being prohibited then such publication is a breach of the privileges of the Assembly.

Judgment

The court of law held that in accordance with Article 194(3) of the Indian Constitution, the state legislative assembly of Bihar does have the same immunities, privileges and power as the British House of Commons. It was said that since Bihar legislative assembly did not have passed any law concerning the power, privileges, and immunities of the legislative assembly and hence legislative assembly of Bihar will enjoy similar power privileges, privileges, and immunities as that of the British House of Commons. In the British House of Commons, there is a framed order that no member shall give a copy or publish any kind of stuff that has happened during the preceding of the House i.e. no publication of the statement must be made that has taken place in the House. Therefore while dealing with the issue of publication regarding the proceeding of parliament or the legislative assembly the law and order of the British House of Commons should be taken into the consideration.

The petitioner said that Article 194(3) is curtailing his Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1) (a) the court has interpreted this question of has concluded that the legislative privilege under Article 194(3) does not abridge the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 19(1) (a) and explanation regarding the same was given. The court of law said that in (1) it is being mentioned that “subject to the provisions of the constitution” whereas in clauses (2) to (4) it has not been stated as subject to. Therefore it can be assumed that Constitutional makers did not intend that that clause should be subject to the provisions of the Indian constitution and hence Article 194(3) does not breach the Fundamental Rights which are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Further, the court of law stated that if any provision of the Indian Constitution takes away or abridges the Fundamental Right then in that case it is a violation of Article 13 and the provision that violates the Fundamental Right must be void. But, since Article 194(3) is perfectly valid it can be inferred that it does not violate Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

However in this case the dissenting opinion was given by Justice Subbarao he quotes the case of Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan[7] and said that Article 194(3) is subjected to Part III i.e. Articles 12 to 35 which deals with Fundamental Rights.

Generalis Specialibus Non-Derogant

The meaning of above stated legal maxim is – where there is a special right, general rights will not be applicable. From the above discussion, we can infer that the Parliamentary Privileges or the State Legislative Privileges are special rights, and in case the Fundamental Rights are the General Rights. In the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others[8], this was one of the key areas where consideration could have been taken and to a certain extent, it was taken. Therefore, the general principles or general rules won’t be applicable in cases where there is a special right. The same was with the condition of Article 194(3) these are the special rights that are being given to the parliament for their effective and efficient working so that they can effectively discharge their functions. And the Fundamental Rights given under 19(1) (a) is the general right that is not applicable in the circumstances in which there is a special privileges/rights and the fines example of the situation is the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others[9].

In the case of Azad Transport Co. v. State of Bihar it was considered that the VAT is a special provision and rules in CrPC are considered to be general.

Conclusion

From the above discussion and the analysis of facts, issues, and the judgment of the case it can be said that the court in its majority decision tries to establish the harmonious construction between the prevailing Fundamental Rights and the privileges given to the parliament and the state legislature. The significance judgment of this case is of paramount importance as it serves as the judicial precedent after this particular case. After the decision was delivered by the court, the assembly was prorogued several times and the privilege committee was reconstructed which issued a fresh notice of petition in the court of law against M.S.M. Sharma. As a result, M.S.M. Sharma moved to the court seeking to reopen the same issue. The court held that the principle of res judicata is applicable in this particular case and held that the matter is already decided which is binding on the petitioner.

However, one question remained open in this case and that was whether Article 21 is being affected because of the privileges given to the parliament or state legislative. The question regarding the subjection of Article 19(1) (a) was solved by the court of law i.e. Article 19(1) (a) is not subject to the privileges. But the court of law failed in this case to answer the question relating to Article 21, whether it overrides the privileges or not.

---

Endnotes

1. INDIA CONST, art. 105
2. INDIA CONST, art. 194
3. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others, 1959 AIR 396
4. INDIA CONST, art. 19(1)(a)
5. Supra note iv
6. Ibid
7. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636
8. Supra note iii
9. Ibid

This case analysis is authored by Prashant Prasad, a second-year law student from University Law College.

As the definition of the word says, defamation is hurt to a person’s reputation caused by a false statement. A man’s reputation is recognized as his property, and anyone who causes property damage is liable under the law; similarly, anyone who harms a person’s reputation is equally liable under the law. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, defamation means the offence of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term includes both libel and slander. Defamation is a statement published that negatively affects a person’s reputation and tends to reduce his reputation among generally right-thinking members of society or to cause people to avoid or shun him.[1]

In English law, there is a distinction between the forms under the categories of criminal defamation and civil defamation. Under criminal law, libel is an offence. Slander is not an offence under criminal law. Slander is a crime when supported by evidence, unlike libel, which is a crime under civil law but not under criminal law.

In Indian law, both slander and libel are recognized as criminal offences under Section 499 of IPC and no distinction is maintained between them[2]. In the law of torts, libel is actionable per se and slander is actionable. It implies that there must be evidence of defamation in a suit for slander.

In the case of D.P. Choudhary v Kumari Manjulata, defamatory news about Manjulata, a 17-year-old girl from a prominent family, eloping with a neighbour was published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Navjyoti”. As a result, her reputation was damaged and she experienced great humiliation because this information was recklessly and falsely reported. The Court held that the words published were defamatory and actionable per se and thus she was entitled to damages of Rs. 10000 [3].

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFAMATION

1. The argument made or published must be defamatory.

The statement made or published must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the plaintiff’s reputation. Whether or whether a comment is defamatory will rely on how the general public, who are right-thinking people, are likely to interpret it.

In Arun Jaitley v Arvind Kejriwal,[4] the court held the statement by Arvind Kejriwal and his 5 other leaders to be defamatory.

In Ram Jethmalani v Subramanian Swamy,[5]the court determined that Dr Swamy was responsible for defaming Mr Jethmalani by alleging that Mr Jethmalani had accepted money from a prohibited organisation to defend the then-chief minister of Tamil Nadu in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

2. It must refer to the plaintiff.

In a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff must show that the comment in question referred to him; whether or not the defendant intended to defame the plaintiff is irrelevant. The defendant shall be held accountable if the person to whom the statement was published may reasonably infer that the statement was addressed to him.

In the case of T V Ramasubha Iyer v A.M.A Mohindeen,[6] The court found the defendants guilty of publishing a statement that was not intended to disparage them. According to the statement, a specific person transporting Agarbattis goods to Ceylon was detained for smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and due to this statement, his reputation was also severely damaged.

3. The imputation must have been made with the intent to injure and with understanding or reason to believe it would harm the person’s credibility.

The essence of the offence of defamation is the harm caused to a person’s reputation. In Sunilakhya v H M Jadwet,[7] the Court stated that the intention to cause harm to the reputation of a person is the sine qua non of the offence of defamation.

In Wahid Ullah Ahrari v Emperor,[8] the appellant was responsible for publishing two articles in a paper called the “University Punch”, Aligarh which contained scandalous accusations against the girls of the Girls’ Intermediate College of Aligarh. For solace and enjoyment, it was claimed that the college’s female students frequented the broad Marris Road, green meadows, and canal banks. It was also claimed that the Meena Bazar Exhibition was held within the college’s grounds and that university students, professors, Muslim and non-Muslim members of the local gentry, as well as gay officers, visited the location after purchasing tickets to go shopping with the female students. The essence of the offence of defamation is the publication of imputation with the knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person defamed, and as these articles do beyond question imply that the girls of the college are habitually guilty of the misbehaviour described in the articles, the inevitable effect on the reader must be to make him believe that it is habitual with the girls of college to behave in this way. Thus, the Appellate Court upheld the order of the Lower Court and held the appellant guilty of defamation.

4. The statement must be made public, meaning it must be shared with at least one person other than the applicant.

The publication of defamatory statements to someone other than the individual who has been defamed is crucial in holding someone accountable. Without it, no defamation case will be possible. If a third party reads a letter intended for the plaintiff incorrectly, the defendant will likely be held accountable. However, there will be a legal publication if the defamatory letter written to the plaintiff is likely to be read by others.

In the case of Mahendra Ram v Harnandan Prasad,[9] the plaintiff filed a suit for the realization of Rs. 500/- as damages for defamation of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff’s case is that he is a respectable man and a man of substantial means and is held in esteem and regard by the public. He lived in a rented house belonging to the defendant who mainly resided in Sultanpur. The defendant sent a registered notice in Urdu from Sultanpur to the plaintiff at Siwan. The plaintiff was not conversant with Urdu and, therefore, got the notice read over by one Kurban Ali in the presence of several other persons. The notice contained defamatory and false allegations against him. The defamatory statement lowered the plaintiff’s estimation of the public and harmed his reputation. The plaintiff’s inability to read Urdu, which required that he have the letter read to him by someone else, was not enough to hold the defendant directly or constructively liable for publishing. Because it was unproven that the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and that he was aware that the plaintiff did not speak Urdu, the court determined that the defendant was not responsible for any damages.

When a passage appears to be innocent prima facie, the complaint can demonstrate that it disparages him by pointing to the context and nature of the publication. Innuendo is the justification given for why a statement is considered defamatory.[10]

Innuendo is a way to speak negative sentences in a very sarcastic or ironic way, which may appear to be positive but is not.

Illustration: X asks Z, “Do you know who stole B’s watch?

Z in return pointed at C and said, “well you know, who can”. This is innuendo as it was sarcastically said by Z while pointing at C. Under Section 499, defaming any person by innuendo is a form of criminal defamation.

Intention to defame is not necessary- Though the person about whom the statement is made thinks it is defamatory, even if the person making the statement thinks it is not, there has been defamation. The fact that the defendants were unaware of the circumstances giving rise to the accusations of defamation despite the statements’ innocence is irrelevant.

In Morrison v. Rithie & Co.,[11] in good faith, the defendants falsely reported that the plaintiff had given birth to twins. The plaintiff had only recently been married. The defendants were held liable even though they were unaware of this fact.

In another case,[12] the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the resolution passed by the defendants with regard to the management of the affairs of a school was illegal. The statement also insulated that there was a doubtful relationship between ‘K’ and the plaintiff. According to the Karnataka High Court, the plaintiff’s moral character was attacked by the statements because they implied that she had engaged in dishonourable conduct by engaging in dubious relationships and activities with another person.

REMEDIES TO DEFAMATION

Every infringement of rights gives rise to a remedy. The Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium enunciates this. There are three defences available to defamation. These are as follows:

1. Justification or Truth

Simply demonstrating the veracity of a claim is not a valid defence in criminal law, but it is so in civil law. In Alexander v. N.E. Rly,[13] the plaintiff had been found guilty of boarding a train out of Leeds without possessing a valid ticket. If he did not pay the fine, he was subject to a fine and a fourteen-day jail sentence. However, after the verdict, the defendant published a notice stating that the plaintiff had been found guilty and given a fine or three weeks in imprisonment in the event of default. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had lied by falsely reporting the punishment given to him.

In Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath,[14] the plaintiff, a block development officer, was the subject of several articles written by the defendant, a newspaper publisher, editor, and printer, alleging that the plaintiff had used unethical and corrupt tactics in a range of cases, including issuing false certificates, taking bribes, and accepting bribes. The defendant was found responsible for defamation because he could not prove that the information he published was truthful.

2. Fair Comment

The comment must be an opinion rather than an assertion of fact. The comment must be fair i.e., without malice. The matter commented upon must be of public interest. It is also essential that the facts commented upon must be either known to the audience addressed or the commentator should make it known along with his comment.

In R.K. Karnajia v. Thackersey,[15] the court held that if the defendant cannot establish the accuracy of a statement of facts published in a newspaper and makes significant accusations of dishonesty and corruption against the plaintiff, the defence of fair comment is predicated on those inaccurate facts, will also fail.

3. Privilege

Privilege confers exceptional status. When the law accepts that the plaintiff’s right to free expression surpasses his or her right against defamation, a defamatory statement uttered on such an occasion is not actionable. There are two categories of privileges.

1. Absolute privilege: In some instances, the individual speaking is given immunity, and no defamation action can be brought against him. It has three components.

• Parliamentary proceedings: Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution grants parliamentarians immunity from prosecution if they talk freely during the parliamentary business.
• Judicial proceedings: Judges are protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850. It also applies to attorneys, witnesses, and defendants in a lawsuit.

In T.G. Nair v. Melepurath Sankunni,[16] Whether a petition to the Executive Magistrate for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and simultaneously sending a copy to the Sub-Inspector of Police for the purpose of taking executive action fell under the purview of the defence of absolute privilege arose. The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation. The court held that the statements made by the defendant in the petition presented to the magistrate and in the copy thereof which he presented to the Sub-Inspector of Police are both privileged.

2. Qualified privilege: This privilege is also available, but it requires that the statement be made without malice, i.e., without a wrongful intention. It is further necessary that there must be an occasion for making the statement.

ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 19: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Freedom of Speech and Expression is one of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic democracy because it allows citizens to participate fully and effectively in the country’s social and political activities. People can share their thoughts and political perspectives due to freedom of speech and expression. It eventually leads to societal and economic well-being.

In the State of West Bengal v Subodh Gopal Bose, the court determined that the State has a responsibility to protect itself against unlawful activities and, as a result, can enact laws to that end. Article 19(1)(a) establishes a limited privilege. There cannot be any liberty that is unrestricted in nature and unregulated in practice to confer an unrestricted right.[17]

In the case of S Rangarajan v Jagjivan Ram,[18] it was held that the Court should bear in mind that restriction should be founded on the principle of least invasiveness, i.e. the restriction should be imposed in a manner and that an individual has the right to a good reputation and should not be subjected to a defamatory circumstance.

Subramanian Swamy v Union of India[19]

Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice P.C. Pant of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the country’s criminal defamation laws enshrined under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, saying that they do not interfere with the right to free expression. Several leaders and media houses suggested that it would limit freedom of expression. There is enough evidence to believe that the ruling is a blatant violation of free expression. Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution set reasonable limits on freedom of expression to prevent defamation. However, whether the provision covers criminal and civil defamation is unclear.

R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[20]

This case dealt with the constitutionality of civil defamation. The Supreme Court of India cited a historic US Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan [21]in this case, which stated that a government official on duty can only recover damages if the truth argument is false and there is a willful disregard for the truth. The court considered the relationship between free speech and civil defamation in this decision. In view of the court, Article 19(1) of the Constitution imposes an unfair restriction on common law defamation.

CONCLUSION

After evaluating all of the significant features of defamation, we observe that the essence of defamation is the injury to a person’s reputation, and he has a good argument against the defendants for this injury. Libel and slander are the two types of defamation. Under Indian law, both are considered criminal offences. Certain privilege exceptions to this rule can protect the defendant from criminal liability.

It signifies that the Indian Constitution has given citizens certain rights, which they should exercise in moderation so as not to infringe on the rights of others. Defamation provisions operate as a check on Article 19 of the Constitution to protect people’s reputations.

---

References

[1] Peel W.E. & Goudkamp J., Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort 360 (Sweet & Maxwell, 19th edn., 2014).
[2] Parvathi v. Mannar, (1884) ILR 8 Mad 175.
[3] AIR 1997 Raj 170.
[4] CS(OS) 236/2017.
[5] A.I.R. 2006 Delhi 300.
[6] A.I.R. 1972 Mad 398.
[7] A.I.R. 1968 Cal 266.
[8] A.I.R. 1935 All 743.
[9] A.I.R. 1958 Pat 445.
[10] PILLAI PSA & VIBHUTE K I, CRIMINAL LAW  1050 (LexisNexis, 14th ed. 2019).
[11] (1902) 4 F. 654.
[12] B.M. Thimmaiah v. T.M. Rukimini, A.I.R. 2013 Kar. 81.
[13] (1865) 6 B&S 340.
[14] A.I.R. 1985 Bom. 285.
[15] A.I.R. 1970 Bom. 424.
[16] A.I.R. 1971 Ker. 280.
[17] A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 92.
[18] (1989) S.C.C. 2 574.
[19] WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 184 OF 2014.
[20] A.I.R.1995 S.C. 264.
[21] 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

This article has been written by Nashrah Fatma, a third-year law student at the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.

Introduction

Transgender¹ or the third sex denotes those people who cannot align themselves to their given respective biological genders with their inherent biological features. They are usually born as male or female but their innate perseverance of gender turns out to be different from their bodily features. Their self-proclaimed gender identity doesn’t match with their sex leading to the discrepancy in their gender orientation. Transgender, transsexual, and hijra are synonymous with each other and are used to denote them.

Since the dawn of human civilization, the existence of transgender people has been acknowledged but they have been devoid of subsequent approval from mainstream society. Even in this 21st century, such people are viewed as taboo and are subjected to persecution and a state of constant denial. Shame and stigma still continue to characterize such subjects in both public and private spheres thus engendering grave misconceptions. They are systematically denied equal rights in spheres of education, employment, marriage, divorce, inheritance, property, adoption, etc. The rudimentary reason for their denial of equal rights is ambiguity in recognition of their gender status as most of the civil rights especially succession, inheritance, marriage, and property rights are gender-specific and the policymaking in India has been always conceived primarily in respect of only two genders i.e. male and female, thereby preventing them from exercising their civil rights in their desired gender.

National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India

The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment of National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India² declared the transgenders as the third gender and endowed them with the right of self-identification of gender as female/ male / third gender. This self-perceived gender identity forms a very crucial part of one’s right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The two-judge bench affirmed their entitlement to the fundamental rights granted to them via the constitution of India. Any denial of their fundamental rights in the civil or criminal sphere owing to their third gender is discriminatory to them. The court held transgenders as socially and economically backward classes (OBC) who are entitled to reservation in educational institutions and public sector appointments.

Constitutional Rights

Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that the State shall not deny to “any person” equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. The phrase “any person” includes transgender too. And article 15 prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of sex. Non-recognition of the identities of transgender/hijras leads to the systematic denial of the rights of equality and equal protection of the law. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution describes that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. It guarantees one of the most basic and fundamental human rights. Expression and alignment of one’s gender is hence an obvious derivative of article 19 (1)(a). Denial of the right to express one’s sexual identity through speech and choice of romantic/sexual partner would lead to violation of Article 19

The Transfer of Property Act 1882 and Miscellaneous rights

The Transfer of Property Act 1882³ and its subsequent amendments regulate the transfer of property. The phrase ‘transfer of property’ denotes a demonstration by which a person transfers or passes the property to at least one person, or himself, and at least one different person. It basically implies the transfer of property from one person to another. The term person consists of an individual, or body of individual or company, or association. Section 5 of the Act provides that transfer of property must take place between two or more persons who are living or it must take place inter vivos. The word “person” above forth holistically includes male, female and third gender. The other property-related laws such as The Hindu Disposition Of Property Act, 1916, The Indian Easements Act, 1882, etc include the word “person” to connote and include transgender within its sphere and do not per se disqualify them from legal transactions.

Inheritance Laws

The inheritance and succession laws lay down rules pertaining to the devolution of property on the death of an individual. The property is devolved on the basis of the relationship between the deceased and the inheritor. The succession laws in India are governed by the respective personal laws of the religious communities that chiefly recognize inheritors into the watertight compartments of the male and female genders. In order to claim property rights, transgenders are required to recognize themselves as male or female.

The Hindu Succession Act 1956⁴ which governs the inheritance of properties is completely silent pertaining to the rights of transgender. It explains who is Hindu and whom all comprise the inheritance schedule (such as son, daughter, spouse, etc.) within the said definition. The Act establishes a comprehensive and uniform system of inheritance. Ownership over the property is granted only to males and females thereby excluding the third gender. Such trans people are devoid of property rights and subject to extreme prejudice and vulnerability. They have to align their genders to respective categories of either male or female in order to claim property rights. So they have to establish their gender identity as per the one assigned to them at their birth certificate. Moreover, trans people are not entitled to the status of legal heir of their parent’s separate property nor coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family with their gender identity.

Similar to the line of succession rules of The Hindu Succession Act, the personal law of Muslims i.e. Shariat too follows similar rules pertaining to transgender property rights. Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs property inheritance of Christians. Notably, Section 44 of the act has included transgender and elucidates upon their inheritance of the ancestral property.

THE TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2019

THE TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2019⁵ has made a decent effort to protect the rights of transgender and promote their welfare by prohibiting discrimination on grounds of education, employment, healthcare, movement, access to goods and services, choice of occupation, etc. The act has sought to remove discrepancies in unfair treatment with regard to the right to reside, purchase, rent, or otherwise occupy any property. Section 4(2) of the Act provides the right to self-perceived gender identity. Section 5 of the Act provides that a transgender person could be perceived as third gender (transgender) by making an application to the District Magistrate for issuing a certificate of identity as a transgender person. But the act does not delineate anything about property rights thereby perpetuating lacunae in the system.

Evolving Sphere

Recently States such as Uttar Pradesh⁶, Uttarakhand, etc have sought to enforce progressive laws on property inheritance of transgender people. It has successfully passed an amendment to include transgender people in the UP Revenue code wherein they will be included in the inheritance nomenclature. The transgender people will now be recognized as members of a landowner’s family and will hold an equal right to inherit agricultural property.

Conclusion

The SC judgment in the NALSA case coupled with THE TRANSGENDER PERSONS ACT, 2019 has sought to create a level playing field by endowing trans people with the right to self-identification and creation of the label of the third gender. Transgenders cannot be denied the right to property per se as they have the absolute right to inherit family property unless disqualified by law. The State must strive to ensure equality of rights and promote the holistic development of the trans community as a whole.

References:

1. FAQs, https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
2. WP (Civil) No 400 of 2012
3. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2338/1/A1882-04.pdf
4. https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Inheritance-Rights-of-Transgender-A-Cry-of-Humanity.pdf
5. https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/why-transgender-people-still-have-to-go-through-hoops-to-get-married-or-inherit-property-in-india-2842545.html

This article is written by Riya Ganguly, 2 nd year BBA LLB student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of social media and networking it is difficult to maintain privacy with the data available online. Data on the internet is flowing like water in the river. If the information of someone is available on the internet which the person has relevant context now or the reason for which it was there on the internet has been served is affecting the other person emotionally or making it difficult for another person to live peacefully. Then, it is a violation of article 21¹. This can be removed through the right to be forgotten which is provided under the right to privacy.

Right to forgotten means the deletion of the user’s personal information from the search engine, website, and many more. The European Union acquired the General Data Protection Bill [GDPR]² in the year 2018. Article 17 of this bill provides certain rights to the erasure of personal information and the certain rights include which are no longer necessary, consent has been withdrawn for particular information, and where there is legal obligation to erase. There are also some reasonable restrictions to some extent like in the area of public interest related to public health, or the data required in achieving historical, statistical, or scientific research.³

The right to be forgotten is to be followed in other countries also. In 2014, in Spain, the European court of justice managed a case Google Inc V Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De Datos in which a Spanish man whose name was Mario Costeja Gonzalez asked google to remove his information related to the auction for his unbridled home and the debt he had subsequently paid. Google was sued under the National High court which suggested a series of questions to the European court of justice. The court ruled the judgment in the favour of the Spanish man and asked google to delete the information.

In 2016, the first case of the right to be forgotten was heard by the Chinese court in Beijing in which they held that the residents don’t have the right to be forgotten. In this case, Ren Jiayu asked the Chinese web search tool Baidu to remove the search list that is related to Wuxi Taoshi’s previous business. Ren argued that the right of name and right of notoriety is reserved under Chinese law. Then the court ruled the judgment against Ren and said that he doesn’t have a right to be forgotten.

RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN UNDER THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL

The right to privacy is our fundamental right under article 21 of the Indian constitution decided in the case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy Vs the Union of India⁴ in 2017. Data is a very sensitive thing that needs to be protected. The personal data protection bill⁵ was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 2019 with the objective to protect or conserve the data from getting into the wrong hands. This bill also includes the right to be forgotten under clause 20 of chapter V. it means that any person can ask the data fiduciary to remove or limit the data of the concerned person. The role of data fiduciary is to decide the means and the purpose of controlling the personal data it can be anyone an individual, entity, state, or cooperation. The data will be monitored by the Data protection authority and any removal of data has to be approved by the Data protecting authorities’ adjudicating officer. The officer has to see many aspects like the public interest in the concerned data, the extent of availability susceptibility, or the scope of divulgence before approving the removal of the data.

RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN VS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

“Right to be forgotten is the biggest threat to freedom of speech and expression in the coming decade”
-Jeffrey Rosen

The right to be forgotten is a much-needed statute nowadays to protect the individual interest against defamatory or derogatory statements. Freedom of speech and expression is our fundamental right under article 19⁶ of our Indian constitution and also contains reasonable restrictions under Article 19[2]⁷. Whereas the right to be forgotten can undermine the lusture of freedom of speech and expression. It can affect journalism it will be difficult for media to express their views freely and to wait for the decision of the adjudicating officer. If any person wishes to delete some information on the internet then it will favor the individual, not the society at large. This will also create a sense of feeling in the minds of the people that they are not free to express their views through articles, books, blogs, etc.

CASE LAWS

• Jorawar Singh Mundy Vs Union Of India and Ors⁸
  In this case, the petitioner was an American citizen who visited India in 2009. He got acquitted under the narcotics drugs and substance [NDPS] act, 1985. After two years trial court convicted him on April 30, 2011. On 29 January 2013 through the appeal of state, the Delhi high court then affirmed her acquittal. After returning to America petitioner realized that the Delhi high court’s judgment is available on the internet and this can be harmful to his reputation or while screening test done by the employer. He sent directions to Google India Private Ltd., Google LLC, Indian Kanoon, and vLex.in but the judgment was not deleted then he filled a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for the violation of Article 21. The Delhi high court directed the respondents to delete the judgment.
  
• Dharmaraj Bhanushankar Dave Vs State of Gujarat and ors⁹
  In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Indian constitution before the Gujarat High court for the violation of Article 21. The non-reportable judgment was published by the Indian kanoon on their site and the petitioner contended that google and Indian kanoon has no right to publish any non-reportable judgment. The court held that the judgment was part of the proceeding and that merely publishing judgment on online websites will not amount to be reported. So, it is not a violation of Article 21 and there is no legal rationale to remove the judgment.
  
• Subhranshu Rout Gugul Vs State of Odisha¹⁰
  In this rape case, the accused has created a fake id on Facebook and uploaded objectionable photos of the prosecutrix on the fake id. The police were failed to take any strict action against the accused. The pictures were taken with the consent of the prosecutrix at the time they were in a relationship but now they got separated. It was observed that consent does not mean to misuse the phots or outraging the modesty of the women. In this case, the right to be forgotten should be exercised. The court held that the photo should be removed to protect the privacy of the victim. Irrespective of ongoing criminal cases. The Odisha High Court further noted that the Indian Criminal Justice system is more of a sentence-oriented system, with little emphasis on compensating victims for their losses and suffering. Allowing such offensive photographs and videos to remain on a social networking platform without a woman’s agreement is an outrage to her modesty and, more crucially, her right to privacy.

CONCLUSION

Information in the public domain is like toothpaste. They can not completely be deleted if someone has taken a screenshot or screened the concerned content. the right to privacy is our fundamental right under article 21 of the Indian constitution which needs to be protected. The right to be forgotten is also included in the personal data protection bill, 2019 which is a great step towards the safety of data and the privacy of the individual. In case one person was acquitted under any criminal action but later on find to be innocent and the judgment is reported on many websites or search engines. It can be difficult for the employee to get a job as during the screening process this can destroy the reputation of the employee. The right to be forgotten can be a major relief and can ask for the removal of the judgment. Also in the case when a person with the intention of taking revenge or with the feeling of animosity posts or share any picture or video which is offensive or outrages the modesty of the victim through the right to be forgotten victim can make them deleted. It is been a debatable topic whether the right to be forgotten undermines the fundamental right the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 which also contains reasonable restrictions under Article 19[2] of the Indian constitution. If a person asks to remove some content from the website or from the internet then it can also cause feelings among the people that they are not free to express their views and opinion through writing articles, blogs, etc and the removal of the concerned content can lead to being in the favor of the individual rather than the society at large. According to me, it requires judicial administration, and article 19[2] which provides reasonable restrictions should be amended and should include privacy in it.

References:

Citation of the case

AIR 2018 SC 4321; W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016; D. No. 14961/2016.

Date of the case

6 September 2018

Petitioner

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Union of India & Ors.

Bench/Judges

Dipak Misra, R. F. Nariman, D. Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra.

Statutes Involved

The Constitution of India, The Indian Penal Code.

Important Sections/Articles

Art. 14, 15, 19, 21, 25 of the Constitution of India, Right to Privacy under Fundamental Rights, S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

INTRODUCTION

Navtej Singh Johar V/s Union of India¹ was one of the most critical cases, which changed our Indian laws and conveyed us with a superior understanding of those laws. Right to Life under Art. 21 of The Indian Constitution isn’t just with regards to allowing an individual to live, yet permitting everybody to live they need to live, in any means not harming those of others. Neither The Indian Constitution discusses the Right to Equality on a separate premise. Each living being is to partake in those freedoms with practically no segregation or imbalance.

An individual’s Natural Identity is to be treated as fundamental. What an individual is brought into the world with is normal, the same way the character an individual is brought into the world with is regular and is to be regarded and acknowledged as opposed to being scorned or peered downward on. Crumbling or deterring an individual’s character and personality would be something like pounding the upsides of Privacy, Choice, Freedom of Speech, and different Expressions. For long, the transsexual local area has been peered downward on, to which once Radhakrishnan, J. expressed, Gender character alludes to every individual’s profoundly felt inside and individual experience of orientation, which could compare with the sex relegated upon entering the world, including the individual feeling of the body which might include an openly picked, adjustment of real appearance or capacities by clinical, careful, or different means and different articulations of orientation, including dress, discourse, and peculiarities. Orientation personality, along these lines, alludes to a singular’s self-distinguishing proof as a man, lady, transsexual, or other recognized class. Numerous strict bodies have gone against the Carnal intercourse against the Order of nature and some remember it as a demonstration disparaging the protected idea of Dignity. The Navtej Singh Johar V/s Union of India was the milestone case which prompted the struck down of S. 377 of The Indian Penal Code, as it expressed – Whoever deliberately has licentious inter­course against the request for nature with any man, lady or creature, will be rebuffed with 1[imprisonment for life], or with impris­onment of one or the other depiction for a term which might stretch out to a decade, and will likewise be responsible to fine.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Writ Petition (Crl) No. 76 of 2016 was petitioned for proclaiming the right to sexuality, right to sexual independence, and right to the decision of a sexual accomplice to be essential for the right to life ensured under A. 21 of the Constitution of India and to pronounce S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unlawful. Mr. Arvind Datar learned senior guidance showing up for the writ applicants presented that the two-Judge Bench in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. Naz Foundation had been directed by friendly ethical quality in light of majoritarian discernment while the issue, in reality, should have been bantered upon in the setting of sacred ethical quality. Likewise in a Nine-Judge Bench choice in K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Association of India and Ors., have thought that sexual direction is a fundamental part of freedoms ensured under the Constitution which are not formed on majoritarian discernment. Mr. Arvind Datar expressed that he doesn’t expect to challenge the piece of S. 377 that connects with licentious intercourse with creatures, he limits consenting demonstrations between two grown-ups. The assent between two grown-ups must be the essential pre-condition. If not, the kids would become prey, and insurance of the youngsters in all circles must be monitored and ensured.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Navtej Singh Johar, an artist alongside Sunil Mehra a columnist, a culinary specialist Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Keshav, Aman Nath, and a Businesswoman Ayesha Kapur, all in all, documented a writ request in the Supreme Court looking for a presentation of the right to sexuality, right to sexual independence and right to the decision of a sexual accomplice to be important for the right to life ensured under A. 21 of the Constitution of India and to pronounce S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unlawful, as it was impeding the privileges of the LGBT people group. It was expressed that this segment not just abused A. 21 yet in addition A. 15, 19 alongside the Right to Privacy under the Fundamental Rights in The Indian Constitution. There had likewise been a few cases in the past like the Naz Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi² and Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation³, which were likewise kept in thought during this case.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the rationale adopted in the Suresh Kaushal judgment was proper or not?
2. Whether S. 377 violates A. 14 and 15 of the constitution?
3. Whether S. 377 infringes the right to privacy under A. 21?
4. Whether S. 377 has a ‘chilling effect’ on A. 19 (1) (a) by criminalizing gender expression by the LGBT community?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

• The Petitioner had lamented that the individuals from the LGBT people group were denied the right to life ensured by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The S. 377 of The Indian Penal Code conflicted with the A. 14, 15 of the Indian Constitution as they, as an individual were dealt with inconsistent to other people and segregated on the premise of sex of an individual’s sexual accomplice, and they, had to not to pick an accomplice of their enjoying.
• 19 of The Indian Constitution out of totally was the most cut off, as the local area was denied to communicate their sexual personality through discourse and decision of an accomplice of their enjoying.
• Right to protection under the Fundamental Duties was being impacted as they were evaded by society on finding their specific decision of living.
• It was encouraged to the statement of the S. 377 of The Indian Penal Code, illegal and perceiving the right to sexuality, right to sexual independence, and right to the decision of the sexual accomplice to be essential for A. 21 of the Indian Constitution.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

• The Union of India, taking a nonpartisan side passed on the make a difference to the Hon’ble Court by commenting “It left the topic of the sacred legitimacy of Section 377 to the insight of the Court”. Furthermore, found out if the law set down in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, is right or not.
• Shri K. Radhakrishnan, senior guidance, for the benefit of intervenor-NGO, Trust God Ministries contended, there is no private freedom to mishandle one’s organs and that the hostile demonstrations prohibited by S. 377 are submitted by manhandling the organs. Such demonstrations, according to the intervenor, are undignified and overly critical to the protected idea of nobility and on the off chance that any infraction is caused to the idea of poise, it would add up to established off-base and sacred shamelessness.
• The people enjoying unnatural sexual demonstrations which have been made culpable under S. 377 are more helpless and defenseless against contracting HIV/AIDS, additionally, the level of commonness of AIDS in gay people is a lot more prominent than heteros, and the right to protection may not be stretched out to empower individuals to enjoy unnatural offenses and in this way contact AIDS.
• Mr. Suresh Kumar Koushal, intervenor, by a composed accommodation contended in that that the contention of the candidates that consensual demonstrations of grown-ups in private have been decriminalized in many regions of the planet and, hence, it should be decriminalized in India.
• On the occasion consenting demonstrations between two same-sex grown-ups are barred from the ambit of S. 377, then, at that point, a wedded lady would be delivered remediless under the IPC against her bi-sexual spouse and his consenting male accomplice enjoying any sexual demonstrations.
• For the benefit of Raza Academy, the intervenor, through its learned direction Mr. R.R Kishore, it was contended that homosexuality is against the nature request and S. 377 properly precludes it.

JUDGMENT

1. S. 377 of The Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it applied to the consensual sexual direct between the grown-ups in private was announced Unconstitutional.
2. The choice in the Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (1) was overruled.
3. Basic privileges are accessible to the LGBT people group even though they comprise a minority.
4. S. 377 is violative of A. 14 being entirely discretionary, unclear, and has an unlawful goal.
5. S. 377 punishes an individual in light of their sexual direction and is consequently oppressive under A. 15.
6. S. 377 ignores the right to life and freedom provided by A. 21 which includes all parts of the option to live with poise, the right to protection, and the right to independence and self-assurance concerning the coziest choices of an individual.

CONCLUSION

The judgment for the situation was notable as it struck down the S. 377 of The Indian Penal Code and it allowed them to the Homosexuals and every one of the individuals from the LGBT people group to unreservedly put themselves out there and to stroll with a head high in the general public. They don’t need to fear being evaded by society and their right to security being pulverized and pronounced as hoodlums because they communicated their friendship and affections for their sexual accomplice.

This judgment was an overjoy for each individual from the LGBT people group and different Heterosexuals. The choice was valued even abroad by different NGOs and gatherings named The Human Rights Watch, in this manner acquiring global acknowledgment. Different translations were made to clarify what laws said and that they are to cling to and everybody in the general public is to be dealt with similarly.

References

1. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And … on 8 January, 2018. indiankanoon.org.[Online] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119980704/.
2. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. en.wikipedia.org. [Online] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi#:~:text=Naz%20Foundatio
   n%20v.%20Govt.%20of%20NCT%20of%20Delhi,violation%20of%20fundamental%20rights%20protected%20by%20India%27s%20Constitution..
3. Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. Naz Foundation and Others. www.desikanoon.co.in. [Online] https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2014/02/suresh-kumar-koushal-anr-v-naz.html.

Written by Sara Agrawal student at Sinhgad Law College, Pune.