Corporate privacy and confidentiality claims against press reporting rejected absent proof of sensitive confidential information and public-interest justification.

A corporate plaintiff could not invoke Article 21 privacy against the press because privacy protects natural persons and operates primarily against State action, so the privacy-based claim failed. Confidentiality, however, was recognised in principle as a civil cause of action under the law of breach of confidence, but only where information is genuinely sensitive, obtained in confidence, and disclosure is unauthorised and detrimental; on the facts, that threshold was not shown for the asserted restrictions. Applying public interest, proportionality, and press freedom under Article 19(1)(a), the Court refused prior restraint because the impugned reports did not justify injunctions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a corporate plaintiff can invoke the right to privacy to restrain publication by the press; (ii) whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit on the basis of confidentiality of information; and (iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction against publication of the impugned news items.

Issue (i): whether a corporate plaintiff can invoke the right to privacy to restrain publication by the press.

Analysis: The claim was examined in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the line of privacy decisions recognising privacy as a facet of personal liberty and the right to be let alone. Those authorities were read as protecting the privacy of natural persons and as arising primarily against State action. The Court also noted that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India weighs heavily against a blanket pre-publication restraint on press reporting.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable insofar as it rested on a right to privacy, because the plaintiff, as a corporation, could not invoke that right against non-State actors.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit on the basis of confidentiality of information.

Analysis: The Court considered Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, together with the doctrine of breach of confidence. It accepted that confidentiality can extend beyond classic contractual settings and may protect sensitive commercial information, but only where the information has the necessary quality of confidence, is received in circumstances importing confidence, and disclosure would be unauthorized and detrimental. The Court held that the asserted SEBI-based restrictions were not shown to bar disclosure by the defendants and that confidentiality, as a civil cause of action, was in principle available.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable on the footing of confidentiality of information.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction against publication of the impugned news items.

Analysis: The Court assessed each category of publication against the competing claims of confidentiality and press freedom. It held that the reports did not disclose particulars of such sensitivity as to justify prior restraint, that the SEBI objection was not substantiated, that the references to negotiations and business plans were too general or already newsworthy, and that the reports concerning the PMO and FCCB proposals did not show the kind of grave, direct, and proximate prejudice necessary for injunctive relief. The Court applied a balancing approach informed by public interest, proportionality, and the chilling effect of restraint on free reporting concerning an entity with substantial public shareholding.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the injunctions sought.

Final Conclusion: The alleged publications were protected expressions on matters of legitimate public concern, and the balance of interests favoured free dissemination of news over pre-publication restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporation cannot invoke Article 21 privacy against the press, but it may seek protection of genuinely confidential information only where the information is shown to be sufficiently sensitive and where the public-interest balance justifies restricting publication; absent such proof, prior restraint will not be granted.

---