Judgment : The application is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the business of the applicant and its internal affairs by making any publication or by telecasting in SUN TV, SUN News, Dinakaran or Tamil Murasu against the applicant. .2. The applicant Dinamalar, a registered partnership firm contends that the third respondent, in his newspaper Dinakaran, has started publishing news items, articles regarding the applicants firm, its partners and sons of some of the partners in order to cause wrongful loss to the applicants and to create an adverse opinion about the newspaper Dinamalar. They are telecasting in their channels and publishing in their newspapers false, mischievous and frivolous news items about the applicants newspaper causing injury to the business of the applicant. The said news items are not fair comments and for public good. The third respondent, through his publication, misused the false allegations made by an ex-employee of the applicant by name Uma and painted a wrong picture about the applicant among the public and readers. The applicant issued a statement to the first respondent to telecast a statement refuting the allegations of the above employee Uma, but, the respondents did not telecast the version of the applicant. If the respondents are not injuncted from causing injury to the applicant, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and untoward hardship. In the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has contended that a news item was published in the Computer Malar of Dina Malar of Vellore edition about a website You Tube.co.in and the web frame of the portal You Tube was also published. On publication of the abovesaid article, the local people at Vellore belonging to Muslim community protested on the ground that the said photograph depicts a Muslim in a bad taste. The Editor of Vellore Edition published an apology stating that the said photograph has been published inadvertently and that the applicant has no intention to hurt the religious sentiments of Muslim community. A group of Muslims gathered in front of the office of the applicant on 9. 2008 and damaged the office. The third respondent, in order to instigate the Muslim community against the applicant herein, has blown the abovesaid incident out of proportion wantonly with an intention to cause damage to the business of the applicant. .3. A group of Muslims gathered in front of the office of the applicant on 9. 2008 and damaged the office. The third respondent, in order to instigate the Muslim community against the applicant herein, has blown the abovesaid incident out of proportion wantonly with an intention to cause damage to the business of the applicant. .3. In the counter, the respondents have submitted that there can be no restriction on reporting by newspapers as it would amount to infringement of right of expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No restriction could be made to interfere with the freedom of press unless any law specifically empowers the State to impose any restriction in the interest of public. A news item about the former employee of the applicant, who lodged a complaint against one Ramesh, who is the son of a partner of the applicant, was published. Publication of a news item cannot be taken exception just because it relates to the family of the applicant herein. The respondents cannot be imputed with malice for publication of facts which form part of various legal proceedings. It is premature to come to a conclusion about the truthfulness about the allegations made by the applicant. The general public will be deprived of their access to the information about the current affairs and about the progress of the case against the son of one of the partners of the applicant. The respondents never instigated the Muslim community against the applicant. They never twisted any facts as alleged by the applicant. The publication and telecasting made by them are about the actual instance that have taken place and the same cannot be said to be causing aspersion on the applicant. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of the application seeking interim injunction. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam would submit referring to the various news items published by the respondent that personal attack is being launched by the respondents to cause loss to the business of the applicant. Though they are entitled to publish news item, they shall not launch personal attack as against the son of a partner of the applicant. The news items published by them on various occasions would reflect the malice and ill-will. Very recently, the applicant published an article with a photograph found in the website. Though they are entitled to publish news item, they shall not launch personal attack as against the son of a partner of the applicant. The news items published by them on various occasions would reflect the malice and ill-will. Very recently, the applicant published an article with a photograph found in the website. In spite of the apology tendered by the applicant, the respondents have blown out of proportion the publication of a photograph in the applicants newspaper with a view to flare up the communal tension. Unless the respondents are stopped from launching personal vilification campaign against the applicant, the entire business of the applicant will be ruined apart from the loss of reputation in the midst of the readers and public. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 would contend that the respondents have just telecast the news item. If any defamatory item has been telecasted in the channel, the applicant is at liberty to resort to section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A blanket order of injunction against the press is unknown to law. The right granted under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India cannot be abridged on the plea that certain news items were telecasted by respondents 1 and 3 touching the personal affairs of the applicants for public consumption. Therefore, he would submit that the applicants are not entitled to the interim relief as sought for. .6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4 would submit that the interim prayer sought for in the application has no connection with the main prayer in the suit. Publication of occurrence by respondents 2 and 4 will not amount to inciting the communal violence. The other publishers also resorted to publication of such news item, but they were not hunted by the applicants. An ex-employee of the applicant by name Uma has lodged a complaint as against a son of one of the partners of the applicant. Only her version was published in the newspaper. Just because the aforesaid news item deals with the affairs of a son of one of the partners of the applicants, respondents 2 and 4 cannot be restrained from sharing the said information through their publication to the public who are entitled to know about such affairs. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant has no prima facie case to canvass a prayer for interim injunction. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant has no prima facie case to canvass a prayer for interim injunction. 7. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the law enacted by the State. The freedom of press which is the Fourth Estate flows from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 8. Even in a matter which was sub judice, the Supreme Court in RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD. v. INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED ( (1988) 4 SCC 592 ) has held that though injunction can be granted for the purpose of keeping the administration of justice unimpaired, when there is no present and imminent danger for the continuation of the injunction, the court has to lift the order of injunction and pave way for the press to publish even with respect to a matter which is sub judice as people at large have a right to know in order to take part in participatory development in the democracy. The right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age. Of course, that right puts great responsibility upon those who take upon themselves the responsibility to inform the public. On an appraisal of balance of convenience between the risk which will be caused by the publication of the article and the damage to the fundamental frame of knowledge of the people concerned and the obligation of the press to keep the people informed, the injunction granted therein was vacated by the Supreme Court. 9. In R.RAJAGOPAL v. STATE of TAMIL NADU ( (1994) 6 SCC 632 ), the Supreme Court analysed the implication of Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) and held that publication of any matter concerning privacy of a citizens own as well as of his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing, education, etc., without his or her consent would entitle him or her to damages except where the publication is based on public records including the court records provided it does not pertain to any female victim of sexual assault, kidnap, abduction, etc. In para 26 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been further held as follows:- "The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. No one can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent – whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy." If a person invites any controversy, the publication of such controversy becomes a news. The press has every authority to publish such news item for the consumption of the public. 10. In the instant case, the applicant is aggrieved of the publication regarding two specific instances. It is alleged that the respondents have, with malice, published certain news items about those two instances and started tarnishing the image of the applicant newspaper in order to ruin their business. 11. The first instance is the publication of the allegations made by an ex-employee of the applicant by name Uma. It is not the case of the applicant that such an allegation was not made by the said Uma as against the son of one of the partners of the applicant. It is an undisputed fact that on the basis of the complaint given by the said Uma, a criminal case is also pending. The contention of the applicant is that all false allegations made by the said ex-employee was repeatedly focussed by the respondents through their publication and also through their electronic media. So long as the matter does not travel beyond the personal domain, the press cannot publish such matters as it would directly affect the privacy of an individual. Of course, with the consent of such an individual, such private affairs can be brought to the consumption of the public at large. .12. In the instant case, the said employee Uma has not even raised her little finger that a concocted versions have been published or telecasted by the respondents. Of course, with the consent of such an individual, such private affairs can be brought to the consumption of the public at large. .12. In the instant case, the said employee Uma has not even raised her little finger that a concocted versions have been published or telecasted by the respondents. Therefore, the fact remains that with her consent and blessing, her allegations against one of the sons of the partners of the applicant had been published. Even otherwise, it is found that the allegations made out by the said Uma had breached the private domain and tumbled on the public domain. The public is entitled to know what happened to an individual who served in the applicant Company, when such an individual comes out with certain revelations. Of course in all fairness, the respondents should have published in their newspaper, the statement of the applicant refuting the allegations communicated to the respondents. Press culture demands weightage to be given to the rival contention also, as otherwise, the mind of the public will be moulded with a lopsided flow of information. At any rate, the respondents have shown before the court that the news item regarding the allegation of the said Uma brought out through publication and also through telecasting is only a news item. 13. The other instance brought to the notice of the court relates to a publication of an article by the applicants with a photograph borrowed from the website. There is no dispute to the fact that such a publication has invited the wrath of a particular community. It is not as if the instigation of the respondents had contributed for such violence at Vellore and other parts of the State of Tamilnadu. The dissentment expressed by one community is found to be spontaneous on coming to know of such a publication with a photograph. It is also not denied that other newspapers also had published the violence erupted in the aftermath of such publication by the applicant. Of course, the respondents have social responsibility, being Proprietors of a newspaper as well as a TV Channel, not to be obsessed with the news item regarding such a violence in their TV telecast in order to avoid proliferation of violence to the other parts of Tamilnadu. Of course, the respondents have social responsibility, being Proprietors of a newspaper as well as a TV Channel, not to be obsessed with the news item regarding such a violence in their TV telecast in order to avoid proliferation of violence to the other parts of Tamilnadu. Communally sensitive matters should be very carefully treated by the Fourth Estate in order to avoid escalation of tension between two communities. They should contribute for the de-escalation of such communal flare up in the larger interest of the society. But, the question would arise whether this court can injunct the respondents from publishing or telecasting some news item about the functioning of an individual or about an incident. The court finds that this court has no jurisdiction to make inroad into the constitutionally guaranteed press freedom recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. .14. The main suit has been filed quoting the first instance referred to above seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the business of the plaintiff by making any publication or any telecast and its internal affairs. Telecasting an incident with respect to the publication of some news item, in the considered opinion of this court, will not amount to interfering with the business of the applicant or its internal affairs. The second incident referred to by way of supplementary affidavit has no direct link with the cause of action crystalized into laying of the present suit. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant referring to some news items published by the third respondent through his newspaper, the second respondent, would submit that a bare reading of those news items would unravel the malicious and mischievous approach of the respondents. 16. Aggressive journalism is exhibited in those news items, it is seen. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would bring to the notice of this court that the applicant also was equally aggressive as against the newspaper of the respondents and the persons concerned with the newspaper. Specific instances of malicious and mischievous publication can be prosecuted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Only then can the aggrieved person approach truth as a defence. Specific instances of malicious and mischievous publication can be prosecuted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Only then can the aggrieved person approach truth as a defence. Quoting specific publication which is of defamatory in nature, the applicant has liberty to seek for damages, but, seeking a larger blanket prayer at the interlocutory stage to restrain the respondents from publishing or telecasting any news item would amount to gagging and muffling the freedom of press. At any rate, publication of such news item relating to certain occurrence and the version of certain affected public will not amount to interference of the business of the applicant nor would it amount to putting spokes in the internal affairs of others. 17. The applicant has failed to establish prima face case for grant of ad interim injunction. If a blanket order of ad interim injunction as sought for is granted, the freedom of press guaranteed under the Constitution of India will be jeopardized. The balance of convenience is only in favour of the respondents. 18. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the application seeking ad interim injunction as prayed for as against the respondents. The application, therefore, stands dismissed.