SELVI. J. JAYALALITHAA Vs. PENGUIN BOOKS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 1 and 3 praying to vacate the order of stay made in O.A. No. 417 of 2011 in C.S. No. 326 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Court. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel and Mr. A. Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of Mr. P.H. Manoj Pandian, Mr. Abdul Saleem and Mr. R. Bala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in O.A. No. 417 of 2011 (first respondent in A. No. 2570 of 2011 and plaintiff in C.S. No. 326 of 2011) and Ms. Dalia Sen Oberoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rohan Rohtagi and Mr. R. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 in O.A. No. 417 of 2011 (applicants in A. No. 2570 of 2011 and defendants 1 and 3 in C.S. No. 326 of 2011). No appearance for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 / Defendants 2, 4 and 5.

(2.) Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit in his argument that the suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing the book, namely "Jayalalithaa A Portrait" and an Injunction Petition in O.A. No. 417 of 2011 was filed and ex-parte order of injunction was granted on 26.04.2011, which was periodically extended and finally extended until further orders. He would further submit that the suit was filed on the basis of an article appeared in 'Outlook' magazine and on apprehending that there is reference to her personal life, the plaintiff filed the suit and thereafter only, the book was made available to the plaintiff and the book is about her personal life as well as public life. He would also submit that the matters pertaining to the personal life of the plaintiff have also been written in the book and it is admitted in paragraph 6 of the written statement. Moreover, the third defendant herself says that there is reference to the personal life of the plaintiff, which is mixed rather with her public life and hence, the plaintiff has proved "prima facie" case for the grant of injunction.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff would further submit that the book contains private life of the plaintiff and whatever has been mentioned in the book should be damaging her reputation or should be something related curious insofar as the character of the plaintiff. He would cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,, 1995 AIR(SC) 264 (popularly known as Autoshankar's Case) and would submit that in the aforesaid judgment, it is stated that anything concerning with privacy of a person can be published only with the consent of that person. Only exception of the rule is that any public record which reveals any information that information need not be verified.