Shilpa Shetty may breathe a sigh of relief as the Bombay High Court supported her right to privacy claim in a suit in which she also sought an injunction against a number of media sites. The High Court decided in favor of the actor, stating that the right to privacy is valid and that one cannot make assumptions about someone based on their or their family’s difficulties. This was in response to several speculative articles about Shilpa’s role in the pornographic case, in which her husband Raj Kundra’s involvement is under investigation.
The actress had launched a defamation lawsuit against some members of the media, and the court had issued an injunction against three of the defendants. However, the court made the comment that Shilpa Shetty is a public person and therefore such publications are not defamatory. The court also stated that reporting based on the police’s statements is not defamatory.
The court stated that in a defamation case, the right to privacy must be balanced against the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The latter is currently recognized as a protected constitutional right. The court also mentioned that exceptions to the right to free expression might need to be defined more precisely.
He did, however, accept that no court can overlook the fundamental significance of the right to privacy.
“No court can rule that just because a person is a public personality of any type, that person must be judged to have eternally surrendered her or his right to privacy,” according to a statement published by the court. The right to free expression does not constitute an open season on persons in violation of their right to privacy. The court also said that “due to freedom of expression and press, reporting on investigative speculations cannot be stopped.”
The court also stated that due to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the freedom granted to the press in India, reporting on investigation conjecture cannot be halted, as Shilpa’s petition sought. Shilpa’s motion requested that certain potentially defamatory and speculative articles be deleted immediately, but the court declined to order that all articles be removed.
