bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 118 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 118 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 118 OF 2008 Hardas Hazarimal Tharwani ... Appellant v/s Shri Hari Tanwani (Nimano) ... Respondent Mr.C.J.Sawant, Sr.Counsel i/by Rajesh S. Datar for the appellant. Respondent in person. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 21ST JULY, 2008 21ST JULY, 2008 21ST JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The appellant has challenged the order passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.237 of 2007 on 20.12.2007. The suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. the appellant herein was for an injunction against the defendant to the extent that the defendant should be restrained from publishing defamatory news against the plaintiff or any other news item which may be malicious, false, vexatious, sarcastic, etc. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.2.2008, the defendant-respondent who appears in person, was heard and thereafter this Court restrained the 2 respondent from publishing "any material about strictly personal and the family life of the plaintiff". The Court further observed that there would be no restrictions "as far as publication pertaining to the social activities and his activities as a builder." 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent in person and the judgments placed for consideration by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my view, the order dated 11.2.2008, if continued, would meet the ends of justice. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of R.Rajgopal alias R.Rajgopal alias R.Rajgopal alias R.R.Gopal R.R.Gopal R.R.Gopal & anr. v/s State of Tamil Nadu & ors., & anr. v/s State of Tamil Nadu & ors., & anr. v/s State of Tamil Nadu & ors., reported reported reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632, in (1994) 6 SCC 632, in (1994) 6 SCC 632, has observed that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. The Supreme Court has further observed that nobody can publish anything personal i.e. matters relating to the privacy of an individual, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters, without the person’s consent. It has been held that such matters whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical, cannot be published without the consent of the person concerned, as it would violate the right of privacy of 3 the person. 5. Similarly, in the case of Shilpa S. Shetty v/s Shilpa S. Shetty v/s Shilpa S. Shetty v/s Magna Magna Magna Publications Co. Ltd. & ors., reported in Publications Co. Ltd. & ors., reported in Publications Co. Ltd. & ors., reported in 2001(2) 2001(2) 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 649, Bom.C.R. 649, Bom.C.R. 649, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the material which is not related to the work of the plaintiff, should not be published in the magazine relating to film journalism. Apart from this judgment, the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Shankar v/s Hari Shankar v/s Hari Shankar v/s Kailash Kailash Kailash Narayan & ors., reported in AIR 1982 Madhya Narayan & ors., reported in AIR 1982 Madhya Narayan & ors., reported in AIR 1982 Madhya Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh 47, 47, 47, has also observed that compensation would not necessarily give succour to a person whose reputation is damaged on account of scurrilous material published against him. 6. The appeal from order is thus disposed of with the following order:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R (i) The respondent is restrained from publishing any material which is strictly personal or about the family of the plaintiff. There will however be no restrictions against the respondent for publishing material 4 pertaining to the social activities of the plaintiff and his activities as a builder. (ii) All such publications would be at the risk of the respondent. 6. Appeal from order stands disposed of accordingly. 7. In view of disposal of the appeal from order, the Civil Application No.151 of 2008 also stands disposed of.