defamation - In the case of public officials

43. There are several instances where this Court either struck a balance or placed on a slightly higher pedestal, the fundamental right of one over that of the other. Interestingly, the competing claims arose in many of those cases, in the context of Article 19(1) (a) right of one person qua Article 21 right of another. Let us now take a look at some of them.  (i)  In R. Rajagopal (supra), the rights pitted against one another were the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy of the Officers of the Government under Article 21. The supreme  Court propounded: 

(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above   —   indeed,   this   is   not   an   exception   but   an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious,   right   to   privacy,   or   for   that   matter,   the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the   publication   was   made   (by   the   defendant)   with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media)   to   prove   that   he   acted   after   a   reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove  that   what   he  has  written  is   true.  Of   course, where   the   publication   is   proved   to   be   false  and actuated   by   malice   or   personal   animosity,   the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant   to   the   discharge   of   his   duties,   the   public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as   explained   in   (1)   and   (2)   above.   It   needs   no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament 60 and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule. (4) So far as the Government, local authority and other organs and institutions exercising governmental power are   concerned,   they   cannot   maintain   a   suit   for damages for defaming them. (5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets   Act,   1923,   or   any   similar   enactment   or provision having the force of law does not bind the press or media. (6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media.”