Jayalalithaa: Curious case of the missing book
Former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa’s conviction by the special court in Bangalore has predictably been accompanied by high level histrionics and drama, all of which serve as short term TRP boosters.
It is undeniable that regardless of the eventual outcome of the legal case when it goes on appeal, the story of her rise is an incredible one and for anyone interested in pursuing her life beyond what we find in newspapers and magazines, a book or biography would be the obvious place to turn to.
Ironically this is precisely what will be impossible to do since Jayalalithaa managed to obtain a permanent injunction in 2012 against a book written about her by Vaasanthi, the former editor of the Tamil edition of India Today.
It is perhaps too early to predict whether this is the premature end of Jayalalithaa’s political career, but it would be worthwhile to revisit at this time the premature death of a book which would perhaps have shed more light on the making of Jayalalithaa.
Vaasanthi, a well known political commentator who has previously written Cut-outs, Caste And Cine Stars: The World Of Tamil Politics, spent two years researching and writing Jayalalithaa: A Portrait.
While this was not an authorised biography, the author in her words attempted a "balanced view of her drawbacks, her strengths, her extraordinary courage, and how she single-handedly fights, still, in a male-dominated society". By all accounts the book is in fact a sympathetic look at the remarkable career and rise of a woman in a society marked by extreme patriarchy.
But after Outlook magazine carried an alleged excerpt of the book as a curtain raiser before its release, Jayalalithaa obtained a preliminary injunction followed by a permanent injunction against the book. The primary arguments against the publication of the book included the fact that it was not an authorised biography, that there were factual errors and that it was a violation of Jayalalithaa’s privacy.
The decision of the high court in granting a permanent injunction rested primarily on the privacy argument, and amongst other observations the court concludes that: “During her tenure as chief minister of the state, she had commenced many number of schemes for the welfare of the people and numerous people have been benefited.
If the contents derogatory and referring to private life of the plaintiff are permitted to be published under the guise of explaining the laudatory contents, it will certainly cause damages to the reputation of the plaintiff and also the party she belongs to and the several crores of followers of the plaintiff”. The publishers, Penguin, decided against appealing the order of the Madras High Court and the book has remained in cold storage since. But the recent conviction of and arrest of Jayalalithaa opens out many questions.
How do we balance between the right to privacy versus freedom of speech and expression? Do public personalities, especially those who hold high offices, have the same level of privacy as ordinary citizens?
Especially when it comes to matters that pertain to their conduct while in public office? In the current case the corruption charges include the expenses that were incurred on her foster son’s marriage. It is evident that a marriage which would ordinarily have been a matter of private concern in this case acquires a public hue by virtue of its extravagant spending incommensurate to sources of income.
The Supreme Court of India has in the past laid down the principle that in the case of public officials, the right to privacy is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties.
The question of whether a biography is authorised or not is irrelevant as long as it can be shown that the author has not shown a "reckless disregard for truth" and has acted after a reasonable verification of the facts. In the event that assertions in the book are found to be false, the injured party can seek damages.
But to grant an injunction against a book about a prominent political leader is a disturbing trend and this order has serious chilling effects on the ability of any writer to write about a public figure in the future.
Given that the publishers have refused to challenge the injunction, the question is whether a case like this can be reopened by a member of the public not involved directly in the matter as a matter if public interest?
Does Jayalalithaa’s conviction create a circumstance in which the courts should reconsider their judgement which favoured her privacy over the right of the author to express herself and the right of the public to know?
And if her corruption case could be transferred to another state for an objective hearing, then one wonders why the publishers chose not to have the injunction suit transferred to another high court in which there was no fear of any political pressure?