@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Manikumar, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order dated 21-7-2004 made in I. A. No. 848 of
2004 in O.P. No. 569 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.
2. Facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:
The revision-petitioner has filed O.P. No. 569 of 2004 on the file of the principal Family Court, Chennai for divorce. She filed an application in I.
A. No. 848 of 2004, in the above O.P., to restrain the respondents 2 to 5 in any manner, printing or publishing the proceedings relating to the
institution of the petition filed by her before the Family Court or carry any other recital as news item in the telecast or their respective publication
and to punish them for any such violation. The trial Court dismissed the said I.A., on the ground that the respondents have not contravened the
provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that they are not liable for any punishment under the provisions of the said Act and if they
contravene the said provision, action has to be taken before the appropriate forum. Before this Court, the first respondent has agreed that the
proceedings may be conducted ""in-camera"" and that no publicity be given. On the other hand, the press had contended that the provisions of
Section 11 of the Family Courts Act will have an overriding effect on Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Even at the stage of interim application of stay, this Court after considering the scope and extent of Section 22(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act
and the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 at Paragraphs 12 to 16, has held as follows:
12. The Family Courts Act is only a procedural law and the substantive law relating to family matters may vary from person to person depending
on the religion and the respective personal laws. When a Family Court deals with the matrimonial disputes of Hindu it has to only enforce the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 22 of the said Act in this regard is mandatory. If other personal laws like Christian, Parsi or
Mohamedan Laws do not provide for in-camera proceedings, whether there can be ban on publication or not will have to be decided on the basis
of Section 11. The section confers a discretion on the Judge and also grants a right to the parties to have the proceedings held in-camera. In fact
Section 11 confers a special right on the party to demand in-camera proceedings and there is no discretion vested with the Court when such a
request is made by either party to the dispute. This only strengthens the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even under the
Family Courts Act, there is no scope for any publication or printing or the proceedings under the said Act on the violation of the Press and other
electronic media. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 that the Family Courts Act, 1984 has got overriding
effect on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not sustainable.
13. Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 recognizes the ""right to privacy between the parties in a proceedings conducted under the Hindu
Marriage Act, it has been clearly mentioned in Section 22 of the said Act that the proceedings under the Act should be conducted in-camera and
shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter relates to such proceedings and if any one contravenes such bar he is liable for
punishment with a fine which may extent to one thousand rupees.
14. Right of Privacy has been recognized by Indian Courts. In Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, . Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court held as follows:
24. Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child
rearing. This catalogue approach to the question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical picture of the distinctive characteristics
of the right of privacy. Perhaps, the only suggestion that can be offered as unifying principle underlying the concept has been assertion that a
claimed right must be a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
15. As far as this case is concerned, it is divorce proceedings between the petitioner and the first respondent and the petitioner is a cine actress
and the first respondent is an employee in United States of America. The first respondent is on leave to attend his case. He is unable to leave for
America without the case being heard. Therefore, the interim stay of all further proceedings in the original petition ought to be vacated in the
interest of justice. At the same time the interest of the petitioner also has to be taken note of as publication or telecast of the proceedings
conducted in Court will harm her reputation and cause injury.
16. In the above circumstances, C.M.P. No. 16153 of 2004, taken out by the first respondent is allowed in part and the interim stay already
granted by this Court on 29-9-2004 in C. M.P. No. 15875 of 2004 is vacated only with regard to conduct of further trial in the original petition.
However, the respondents 2 to 5 are restrained from publishing or telecasting the matrimonial proceedings relating to the revision petition in any
way in view of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The order of this Court restraining them from publishing or telecasting the matrimonial proceedings relating to the revision-petitioner has ''not
been challenged on appeal. In addition to what is stated above, I would like to add few paragraphs on the issue of right of privacy, in relation to
matrimonial matters between the litigating parties.
5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 12 states that,
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
6. Freedom of speech and expression, includes right not only to speak, but includes right to print, publish, distribute, receive information. But
whether this right is unrestricted, unlimited and the journalists and the media are not given a total freehand to publish or telecast anything they
desire? Whether right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can simply be exercised
to invade into the privacy of life, which is exclusively reserved to an individual? Whatever transpires in between the litigants to a matrimonial dispute
in a Court of law can it be made public? The answer to all the queries would be that rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) are subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed in the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder.
7. A reader of a newspaper, magazine or a person who watches the television or internet would be too curious to know what''s happening in
other''s life, but would he expect something to be flashed about his own matrimonial life in press or other form of media? Information can be
collected by the press or any other media, like photographs, videotapes, printed matter etc., or it could be even information through interviews
either from the parties to the marriage or from any body else.
8. Faced with a situation, whether the pressman/journalist would like to publish any matter pertaining his own matrimonial affair, without his consent
or matter relating to any matrimonial litigation, affecting his right of privacy? The Supreme Court in Mr ''X'' Vs. Hospital ''Z'', , explained what is
meant by ''right'' in legal parlance and it is extracted:
15. ""Right"" is an interest recognized and protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong. Respect
for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined ""right"". In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a legal
right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition. The elements of a ""legal right"" are that the ""right"" is vested in a person and
is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a
manner so as to prevent the violation of the right. If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a person, the latter can seek its protection against a
person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right.
9. While dealing with the right of privacy vis-a-vis the right of the press, the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others, has held as follows:
26. (1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ''right to be let
alone''. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among
other matters. None 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.
10. ''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 individual''s right to control dissemination of information about himself.
It is his own personal possession. It is well accepted that one person''s right to know and be informed may violate another''s right of privacy. In
other words, disclosure of certain facts, events, actions, photographs, videotapes, in any form of media, print or celluloid, internet would cause
embarrassment, agony emotional stress, to a person of reasonable sensitiveness. ''Right of Privacy'' in other words can be said ""to be let alone"".
What is an information to others according to a journalist, could be a personal and sensitive information to an individual in a litigation relating to
matrimonial dispute. The boundary between freedom of press and privacy of individual is the ""Lakshman Rekha"" and if the media, crosses the line
of boundary, the invasion starts. To strike a balance between these two competing interests is difficult. Right of privacy, vis-a-vis right of
information to be furnished to the general public, in other words, the right of the media, should be with reference to the kind of information which
the law permits. We all know that Constitution does not guarantee absolute freedom or absolute protection to the media. Provisions of certain
enactments would amply demonstrate the inherent restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, like the one prescribed under Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution of India. Reasonable restrictions imposed in certain statutes as follows:
11. Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Court to be open and it reads as follows:
(1) The place in which any Criminal Courts held for the purpose of inquiring or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which
the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them;
Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the
public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence u/s 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-B,
Section 376-C or Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be conducted in-camera.
Provided that the Presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person to have
access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.
(3) Where any proceedings are held under Sub-section (2), it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any
proceedings, except with the previous permission of the Court.
12. Sections 3 and 4 of the Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition Act), 1980, reads as follows:
3. Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of woman :- No person shall publish, or cause to be published, or arrange or
take part in the publication or exhibition of, any advertisement which contains indecent representation of women in any form.
4. Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women :- No person shall produce
or cause to be produced, sell, let to hire, distribute, circulate or send by post any books, pamphlet, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting,
photograph, representation or figure which contains indecent representation of women in any form:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to:
(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure.
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing,
drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art, or learning or other object of general concern; or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;
(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in,
(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or
(ii) any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purposes;
(c) any film in respect of which the provisions of Part II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), will be applicable.
13. Section 7(1)(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (34 of 1971) is extracted hereunder:
(C) Prohibit the disclosure, except to such persons and for such purposes as may be specified in such regulations, of intimations given or
information furnished in pursuance of such regulations.
14. Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the proceedings to be held in-camera and they shall not be printed and published and it reads
as follows:
(1) Every proceeding under this Act shall be conducted in-camera and it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation
to any such proceeding except a judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme Court printed or published with the previous permission of the
Court.
(2) If any person prints or publishes any matter in contravention of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees.
15. Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act (43 of 1954) deals with the proceedings to be in-camera and may not be printed or published and it is
extracted below:
(1) Every proceeding under this Act shall be conducted in-camera and it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation
to any such proceeding except a judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme Court printed or published with the previous permission of the
Court.
(2) If any person prints or publishes any matter in contravention of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees.
16. Section 36 of the Children Act, 1960 deals with the Prohibition or publications of names, etc., of children involved in any proceeding under the
Act and it reads as follows:
(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine or news sheet of any inquiry regarding a child under this Act shall disclose the name, address or school
or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the child, nor shall any picture of any such child be published:
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in
the interest of the child.
(2) Any person contravening the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
17. Visualising the adverse effect on the women and children and exploitation of the vulnerable section of the society, the legislators have imposed
reasonable restriction on the freedom of the media and press. Reading of these provisions makes it clear that the intention of the legislation is to
maintain secrecy in respect of certain proceedings or inquiry and protect women and children from invasion of their right of privacy. These
statutory restrictions are to protect their basic human right to lead life without hindrance from anyone in such of those enumerated matters and the
media should not impinge upon the right of privacy, in other words, they should be allowed ""to be let alone"". ""Right of Privacy"" is now recognised
as a right which flows from right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. Media attention should be towards exposing corruption, nepotism, law breaking, abuse or arbitrary exercise of power, law and order,
economy, health science and technology etc., which are matters of public interest. The ""Lakshman Rekha"" or the ""line of control"", should be that
the publication of comments/information should not invade into the privacy of an individual, unless outweighed by bona fide and genuine public
interest. Right of information is a facet of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of
information has been recognised as a Fundamental Right and the Right of Press to furnish the information or facts or opinion should be only to
foster public interest and not to encroach upon the privacy of an individual. The public at large has no fundamental or legal right to get any
information or intrude into the personal life of the other individual. Statutes empower the authorities to examine the parties, under exceptional
circumstances, contained therein. When the public at large has no legal right to impinge upon the marital privacy, the press or any other media
cannot claim a better right to publish in newspaper, magazine or any other form of media, in exercise of freedom of speech and expression.
19. Shroud''s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (iv Edition), defines ""Public Interest"" as ""A matter of public or general interest, does not mean that which is
a interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or liability are affected.
20. In Black''s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), ''public interest'', is defined as follows:
Public Interest - Something in which the public, the community at Large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interest of the particular localities, Which may be affected
by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local state or national government...
21. Section 22(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act states that every proceeding under this Act shall be conducted ""in-camera"" and it shall not be lawful
for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceeding except a judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme Court,
printed or published with the previous permission of the Court. The Supreme Court in Babu Lal Vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others, , held that
the word ""proceeding"" is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed cause of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not
a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning will be governed by the statute. Again in P.L.
Kantha Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , the Apex Court held that the word, ""proceeding"" would depend upon the scope
of the enactment wherein the expression is used to a particular context to which it occurs. It means a course of action for enforcing a legal right.
22. The expression ""any matter in relation to any such proceeding"" should be given the widest import and it has to be given full effect to, when it is
read in conjunction with the words ""every proceeding"" occurring in the beginning of the section. Considering the scope of the Act, i.e., Hindu
Marriage Act, which governs marriage between the Hindus, relief of divorce and Judicial separation, alimony, temporary or permanent, the lis
being purely inter se, reading of the Section in its entirety in its context, reflect the intention of the legislation, primarily sought to be achieved. The
language employed in Section is plain and unambiguous and it covers every proceeding under the Act.
23. The right of privacy created by the statute has to be preserved. The very inception of the provision, Section 22 in the Hindu Marriage Act
makes it clear that matters pertaining to matrimonial affairs are intended to be conducted ''in-camera"" and not intended to be divulged to others,
except publication of the judgment with the leave of the Court. Right of privacy in matrimonial matters between the ""parties in a litigation under
Marriage Acts is personal to the litigating parties. Thus it is manifestly clear that the legislature has intended to guard the right of privacy in relation
to matrimonial matters and it is a settled legal position that the real meaning and effect should be given to the words employed in the Statute. In the
light of language employed in the Statute, the right of privacy is so fundamental to the individual excepting to the extent provided under the
Marriage Acts. Of course, we should not forget the role of our independent press and media in coming out with relevations of public interest;
resulting in societal changes. As the freedom of the press is for the dissemination of information of public interest and public affairs, those Which
are not related to the above, but involving the marital relationship of the parties to a litigation should not be published or telecast, as it is prohibited
under law. Publication of the proceedings meant to be in-camera will affect the constitutional liberty guaranteed to the individual and it would be an
invasion of his right of privacy. When Section 22(1) of the Act prohibits printing or publishing any matter in relation to any such proceeding arising
under the Act, the Family Court or any other competent Court dealing with matrimonial matter, under the Hindu Marriage Act, has inherent
jurisdiction to issue an order of injunction or any such direction to give full effect to the statutory provision. Therefore, the contention of the
respondents 2 to 5 that they are not parties to the Original Petition and, therefore, no injunction can be granted against them, cannot be
countenanced.
In view of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
dismissed.
