Peepli Live, 2010 Indian satirical comedy film that explores the topic of farmer suicides and the subsequent media and political response The satire movie captures the sad reality of the media rooms.

This article fundamentally elaborates the Freedom of Speech and Privacy in the Press in India. It emphasized on the fact that where this right comes to be restricted and becomes the infringement of the other’s rights. This emphasized on when should a Journalist’s Right for freedom and expression be restricted?

Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression as two sides of same coin

Article 19(i)(a) enshrined in the Constitution of Indian empowers its citizen to have freedom of speech and expression as a basic fundamental right. The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium like word of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie, etc. But, it is palpable that this right certainly has some boundaries in the name of reasonable restriction. On the other hand, Right to Privacy is another significant fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It is enshrined under Article 19 as well as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In 2008 and 2009,  Ratan Tata approached before the Apex Court of India alleging that the unauthorised publication of his private conversations with Nira Radia was in contravention of his right to privacy. “The writ, filed by the industrialist, did not challenge the action of the Directorate-General of Income Tax to record the private conversations for the purpose of investigations. Instead, it was challenging the publication of the private conversations that took place between the industrialist and Nira Radia by the media. Whether the publication of those private conversations was in the interest of the public has been widely debated. What the Tata episode brought into focus was the need for a law protecting the right to privacy in India.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, in a landmark report to the Human Rights Council in June 2013 marked the implication by asserting the below:

“The right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individuals’ privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. … An infringement upon one right can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other..”[1]

Further Our Supreme Court have also cordoned off the difference between the Freedom of Press and Right to Privacy. In Mrs.G.Pravina vs Shri.Narendra Modi (2014)[2], the supreme court asserted the that:

“11. ‘Privacy’ has been defined as “the rightful claim of an individual to determine to which he wishes to share himself with others and control over the time, place and circumstances to communicate with others”. It means the individuals right to control dissemination of information about himself. It is his own personal possession.

Role of Indian Judiciary in Check and Balance

India prohibits the infringement of right to privacy through its various legislation. The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by other laws which put limitations on the freedom of expression are used as the tool. Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the government the right to declare certain publications “forfeited”. In R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [3]and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[4] the court had observed that the right to privacy is an essential ingredient of the right to life. In 1961, Supreme court found Henry Rodrigues guilty of insulting religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics, and acting with a malicious intention in publishing and printing the same in ‘Crusader’ magazine and hence, was held guilty.[5] Further, in 2011, a lawsuit was filed by Dinanath Batra under Section 295A of IPC against the book “The Hindus: An Alternative History”.[6] The book was withdrawn from the Indian market by its Indian publisher,[7] and the publisher Penguin India agreed to destroy all the existing copies within six months commencing from February 2014.[8] These are just an instances and still counting.

Instances of Privacy and Data Protection Cases across the Globe

On July 18, 2018, Sir Cliff Richard OBE was awarded £210,000 (about US$270,360) in general damages after the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was held liable for infringing his privacy rights over the filming and broadcast of a search of his UK property by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) in relation to allegations of historical child sexual abuse.[9] Further, The England and Wales Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction to prevent the Daily Telegraph from publishing a story that included confidential information obtained in breach of non-disclosure agreements.[10]

Conclusion

The failure of the international community to develop a stronger statement of the meaning and application of the right to privacy may be in part due to the challenges in defining the content and contours of the right.[11] Infringing the Right to Privacy by the Media has now become a fashion and a short cut to get publicity, poses vexing and complex problems for contemporary constitutional rights to freedom of expression. In the present age of more expeditious mode of communications and convivial networking the infringement can now virtually instantaneously spread throughout the world, and as nations become increasingly convivially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse, the desideratum for regulation becomes ever more exigent.