A

PROJECT FILE ON

“R. Rajagopal and Ors vs The State of Tamil Nadu”

Submitted in the partial fulfilment of

SCHOOL OF LAW
(Session: 2020-21)

LAW OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Submitted by Submitted to
Spriha Shreya Mr. Sushil Jain
Roll no.1600 2154 (Assistant Professor)
B.COM-LL. B (8th Semester) SCHOOL OF LAW
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Sagar Jaiswal sir (Head of the Department) for
providing me an opportunity to do my project work in “R. Rajagopal and Ors versus The
State of Tamil Naidu in Law of Right to Information”.
I sincerely thank my subject teacher Mr. Sushil Jain sir for his guidance and encouragement
in carrying out this project assignment. Without his support I could not have completed this
project work.

Spriha Shreya

Roll no. 16002154

B.com-LL.B (9th Semester)

I am glad to submit this project report on “R.Rajagopal and Ors versus The State of Tamil
Nadu” as a part of our academic assignment. The project is based on study of case. I hope
this would be significant for academic purpose as well as prove informative to all readers.
Here thus, I certified that this paper is original piece of study & search and all the borrowed
ideas and text have been duly acknowledged.
 DECLARATION

I, Spriha Shreya, Roll No.1600 2154, B.com-LLB (9TH semester) of Guru Ghasidas
University, do hereby declare that, this project is original work and I have not copied this
project or any part thereof from any source without due acknowledgement. I am highly
indebted to the authors of the book and the online educational sites that I have referred in my
project.
Here, thus I declare that this project has been completed because of the intellectual
contribution and proper guidance of my faculty advisor, Mr. Sushil Jain Sir that I am able to
gather light on the subject.
 R. Rajagopal and Ors versus The State of Tamil Nadu

FACTS

Shankar@ Gauri Shankar@Auto Shankar was charged and trial for as many as six murders. He was
convicted and sentenced to death by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chenglepat on 31/5/1991
which was confirmed by the Madras High Court on 17/7/1992. Auto Shankar wrote his
autobiography running into 300 pages while confined in Chenglepat sub-jail during the year
1991. The autobiography was handed over by him to his wife, Smt Jagdishwari, with the
knowledge and approval of the jail authorities, for being delivered to his advocate, Shri
Chandrasekharan. The prisoner requested his advocate to ensure that his autobiography is
published in the petitioners' magazine, Nakkheeran. The petitioners agreed to the same. Auto
Shankar affirmed this desire in several letters written to his advocate and the editor, printer and
publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran. The autobiography sets out the close nexus
between the prisoner and several IAS, IPS and other officers, some of whom were indeed his
partners in several crimes. The presence of several such officers at the house-warming
ceremony of Auto Shankar's house is proved by the video cassette and several photographs
taken on the occasion. Before commencing the serial publication of the autobiography in their
magazine, the petitioners announced in the issue dated 21/5/1994 that very soon the magazine
would be coming out with the sensational life history of Auto Shankar. This announcement
sent shock waves among several police and prison officials who were afraid that their links
with the condemned prisoner would be exposed. They forced the said prisoner, by applying
third degree methods, to write letters addressed to the Inspector General of Prisons and the first
petitioner requesting that his life story should not be published in the magazine.

Certain correspondence ensued between the petitioners and the prison authorities in this
connection. Ultimately, the Inspector General of Prisons wrote the impugned letter dated
15/6/1994 to the editor, printer and publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran. The
letter stated that the petitioner's assertion that Auto Shankar had written his autobiography
while confined in jail in the year 1991 is false. It is equally false that the said autobiography
was handed over by the said prisoner to his wife with the knowledge and approval of the prison
authorities. The prisoner has himself denied the writing of any such book. It is equally false
that any power of attorney was executed by the said prisoner in favour of his advocate, Shri
Chandrasekharan in connection with the publication of the alleged book. If a prisoner has to
execute a power of attorney in favour of another, it has to be done in the presence of the prison
officials as required by the prison rules; the prison records do not bear out execution of any
such power of attorney. The letter concludes:

"From the above facts, it is clearly established that the serial in your magazine under the caption
'Shadowed Truth' or 'Auto Shankar's dying declaration' is not really written by Gauri Shankar
but it is written by someone else in his name. Writing an article in a magazine in the name of
a condemned prisoner is against prison rules and your claim that the power of attorney is given
by the prisoner is unlawful. In view of all those it is alleged that your serial supposed to have
written by Auto Shankar is false? Since with an ulterior motive for this above act there will
arise a situation that we may take legal action against you for blackmailing. Hence, I request
you to stop publishing the said serial forthwith.
Parties in this case are as follows:
1. The Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran
……………………………….………………………………………..petitioner no. 1
2. The Associate editor of the magazine…………………………………petitioner no.2
versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, Home
Department…………………………………………………………. respondent no.1
2. Inspector General of Prisons, Madras ………………………………respondent no.2
3. Superintendent of Prisons (Central Prison), Salem, Tamil Nadu……. respondent no.3

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The High Court had dismissed Rajagopal's plea, saying that the question of whether Shankar
had even written his autobiography and authorized its publication was in dispute. Counsel
pointed out that the magazine could not produce any letters by Shankar saying so and further
submitted that the allegations by Rajagopal that a number of IAS, IPS and other officers
patronized Shankar was baseless. “It is only in the context of such a situation coupled with the
fact that the petitioner might under the guise of such an autobiography tarnish the image of the
persons holding responsible positions in public institution that the communication [the prison
letter] was sent to him”.
As per this case, the right to privacy is implied part of Article 21. It is somewhat a right to be
left alone. Every person can be allowed to try to safeguard their privacy and that of their family.

The court had reorganised that there was no explicit right to privacy but discussed that there
are some aspects of this right in the constitution.

The judges held that the book could be published by the publishers even without the
authorization of Shankar or authorities as much as appears in public records. They could not
publish anything which is secret information, they could be held to violate the right to privacy
and be punished. The state cannot stop the publication but have every right to seek remedy if
the above clause is harmed.

ISSUE

➢ Whether a citizen of this country can prevent another person from writing his life story
or biography?
➢ Does such unauthorised writing infringe the citizen’s right to privacy?
➢ Whether the freedom of press guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) entitles the press to publish
such unauthorised account of a citizen’s life and activities and if so to what extent and
in what circumstances?
➢ Whether the Government has any legal authority to impose prior restraint on the press
to prevent publication of material defamatory of its officials?
➢ Whether the public officials, who apprehend that they or their colleagues may be
defamed, can impose a prior restraint upon the press to prevent such publication?
RULE(S)

PLAINTIFF- The plaintiff argued with Section 19(1)(a), right to freedom of speech and
expression. Every citizen is guaranteed the freedom to express themselves in any way they like,
with certain restrictions, none of which are being violated in this case. Article 21 defines the
right to life and personal liberty. As per the court, this was also to imply the inclusion of the
right to privacy.

Furthermore, the right to privacy was then not a fundamental right and hence the freedom of
speech and expression could overpower it.

They also contested that there was no defamation. This was because the truth is a defence to
defamation and they argued that the autobiography was indeed written by Shankar during his
time in the prison. This was well observed by the exchange of the book between Shankar and
his spouse during his time in prison, had been recorded by the police authorities.

DEFENDANT- The argument used by the defendant party was right to privacy. They believed
that the biography if published, would greatly hamper the privacy of the prison authorities. The
book gave a good description of various authorities and the publishers had no way to check the
information.

Another argument taken up by them was that as per them the information put up in the
autobiography was completely false and hence defamatory under Section 499 and 500 of The
Indian Penal Code talk about defamation.

The biggest issue in the case was that there was no proof as to if the biography was really
written by Auto Shankar and it was only alleged by the publishers R. Rajagopal and others. By
the time this case had gone to trial, Shankar had already got the death penalty and there was no
way to confirm if the biography was written was actually by him or had been modified.

APPLICATION

➢ Supreme Court Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy noted that Shankar, his wife and lawyer were
not parties to this petition. “We do not have their version whether Shankar has indeed
written his autobiography and/or requested or authorized the petitioners to publish the
same” the Judge noted, declaring he would proceed on the assumption that Shankar
hadn’t written the autobiography nor authorized its publication. “We must, however,
make it clear that ours is only an assumption for the purpose of this writ petition and
not a finding of fact,” he clarified. Thus it was important to note that there was no
clarification or proof. The court had said that it was important to know whether actually
the biography was actually written by Gauri Shankar or not.
 ➢ Right to privacy was not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution but has
been inferred from Article 21. So the book is told to have talked about various prison
authorities is a defamatory sense (although maybe true).

➢ However, there is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit or to impose
a prior restraint upon the press/media.

➢ Every person has a right to privacy and it is immoral and illegal to defame a person
based on the observations of a single person whose opinions may have in biased. Thus
even though the act of public officials is public service they must be entitled to such
right of privacy with respect to their official duties equal to all other people.

➢ It is also very important to note that every person has the right to get his autobiography
published because every person has a fundamental right to speech and expression
according to Section 19(1) of the Constitution of India.

➢ Section 19 (2) imposes ‘reasonable restrictions on the right to speech and expression
thus it is important to consider that any information which could not be checked of
being true or not should not be published. In the case there was no proof that the book
was actually written by Gauri Shankar hence this book must not have been published.

➢ The state cannot prevent the publication as there are no laws to stop publication of
potentially defamatory articles. However, the plaintiffs can always sue after such
articles are published.

The Supreme Court said that the true reminiscence of the limits of freedom of press with respect
to the right to privacy: “A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family,
marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. No one
can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful or
otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to
privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may,
however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily
invites or raises a controversy.”

And held that “Shankar had the freedom to get his biography published because it was
not made will any mala fide 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”.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

During the proceedings in the Court, the question that arose was whether the freedom of speech
and expression violates the right to privacy or cause defamation or reveal any official secrets
of the state. The following question has two aspects: - 1) the general law of privacy which
affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2) the
Constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against
unlawful Governmental invasion and corruption.
The court had not paid much attention to the fact of what might happen if the autobiography
was released and may cause defamation to the plaintiff. Though they may be sued later but
much damage would have already been caused (which distorted their public image).

As per my opinion, The Court made mistake by allowing the book to be published as original.
The book had names of prison authorities and many intimate details about the prison facilities.
Though there was no evidence showing that everything written by Shankar was true and the
only way it could have been proved was by the presence of Shankar himself but till that his
death penalty was executed.

Although the court has allowed the State to appeal, once the book is published, the damage is
done. Even if the judgement was later reversed, once the book had been published, names of
the authorities who allegedly committed crimes would have been called out and they would be
severely disrespected in the society.

If the court still wanted to get the book published, they must have first conducted a police
investigation to check if the police officers talked about in the book were actually involved in
the crime.

In the matter of Justice K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court on August 24,
2017 delivered a landmark judgement declaring that the Right to Privacy is a constitutional
right and is an integral part of Part III of the Constitution of India. Part III of the Indian
Constitution lays down our fundamental rights. The Bench held that Right to Privacy is an
integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Now, right to privacy is a fundamental
right still needs proper implementation. Also, freedom of speech and expression cannot be
warranted for a defamatory statement or in cases where the true nature of the alleged facts is
not known. This right cannot be denied and it is rightfully given to the people however it must
be controlled in situations to avoid it being misused.