Press Freedom, Informational Privacy || Orissa High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 26.06.2023
Citation - A. No. 1009 of 2023 in C.S. No. 189 of 2022
Case Type - Application
Case Status - Disposed of
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"It is pertinent to consider the order of this Court made in O.A.No.871 of 2014 and A.No.6297 of 2015 in C.S.No.705 of 2014 dated 16.05.2018 wherein, a learned Judge of this Court after analyzing the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in the case of Justice K.S.Puttuswamy's (Retd.) reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, R.Rajagopal's case reported in 1994 (6) SCC 632 and Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 2 LW 377 had come to the following conclusion- "40.The theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or a gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy's case. The observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, extracted earlier would show that the Media cannot in the guise of public interest publish anything and everything, which may be interesting." "
Read moreThe right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech should be balanced against the test of public interest. With respect to a person in the public sphere, a publisher cannot publish everything in the guise of public interest. The Court directed that any publication of statements on public platforms regarding the activities of the respondent (a public figure) should be done only after notifying the respondent regarding the same and incorporating the response in the publication if the response is received within 72 hours.
Read moreMethodology
The Privacy High Court Tracker has been developed using judgements pulled from the Manupatra case law database. Through its search function, CCG identified cases that relied upon the Puttaswamy judgment and were pertaining to the right to privacy, and filtered them by each of the 25 High Courts in India. These were then further examined to identify those cases whose decisions concerned a core aspect of privacy. CCG identified the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. Cases where only incidental or passing observations or references were made to Puttaswamy and the right to privacy were not included in the tracker. The selected cases were then compiled into the database per High Court, with several details highlighted for ease of reference. These details consist of case name, decision date, case citation and number, case status, legal provisions involved, and bench strength. The tracker also includes select quotes concerning the right to privacy from each case, to assist users to more easily and quickly grasp the crux of the case.
For ease of access to the text of the judgments, each case on our tracker is linked to the Indian Kanoon version of the judgment (wherever available) or an alternative open-access version of the judgment text.
We welcome your feedback. In addition, you may write to us at - ccg@nludelhi.ac.in with the details of any privacy case we may not have included from any High Court in India.
