Whenever two fundamental rights compete, the Court will balance the two to allow the meaningful exercise of both.

the   Right   to Information Act, 2005. The Act balances the citizen’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a) with the right to fair investigation and right to privacy under Article 21. This careful balancing was   explained   by   this   Court   in  Thalappalam   Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala4 .  The decision of this Court in  R.  Rajagopal  alias  R.R.  Gopal  vs.  State  of T.N.5 is another example of reading down the restrictions (in the form of defamation) on the right to free speech under Article 19(2), in its application to public officials and public figures in larger public interest. Again, in People’s Union for Civil   Liberties   (PUCL)  vs.  Union   of   India6 ,   the   right   to privacy of the spouse of the candidate contesting the election was declared as subordinate to the citizens’ right to know under   Article   19(1)(a).   In  Jumuna   Prasad   Mukhariya  vs. 4 (2013) 16 SCC 82 5 (1994) 6 SCC 632 6 (2003) 4 SCC 399 12 Lachhi Ram7 , a challenge to Sections 123(5) and 124(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (as they prevailed at that   time)   was   rejected,   on   the   ground   that   false   personal attacks against the contesting candidate was not violative of the right to free speech. But when it comes to private citizens who are not public functionaries, the right to privacy under Article 21 was held to trump the right to know under Article 19(1)(a). This was in the case of Ram Jethmalani  vs. Union of   India8 ,  which concerned the right to privacy of account holders. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited vs.  Securities  and  Exchange   Board  of   India9 ,  this Court struck a balance between the right of the media under Article 19(1)(a)   with   the   right   to   fair   trial   under   Article   21.   The argument that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) was a higher right than the right to reputation under Article 21 was rejected by this Court in Subramanian Swamy  vs.  Union of India, Ministry   of   Law10in   which   Section   499   IPC   was   under challenge. The right to free speech was balanced with the right to pollution free life in Noise Pollution (V.), in Re11 and the right to fair trial of the accused was balanced with the right to fair trial of the victim in Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar12 .