justification for creation of an aura of suspicion against the petitioner in relation to the murder of the Swami Yogananda rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner. 141…In this context, thus the contention of the petitioner seeking to contend that there were deliberate insinuations against him made by the author that he was not willing to get the post mortem conducted on the body of Rajeev Dixit to cover up a foul play, prima facie cannot be accepted.‖ 29. It was held that the fact that Plaintiff No. 1 is a public figure could not ipso facto constitute a license to defame him. Insofar as the interlocutory injunction is concerned, the Court in paragraphs 180 concludes as under: “180. Thus as the petitioner about whom the BOOK is written about is living human being and thus entitled to be treated with dignity and has a right of social reputation as an ordinary citizen even if he be a public figure, and as reputation as a cherished value and an element of personal security, portions of the BOOK which make readers think that he is an ambitious villain, until so proved in the Court of Law are necessarily to be restrained form being published and distributed for sale till disposal of the suit bearing no. 619/2017 pending before the learned ACJ-CCJARC(E), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. This is so as the right to reputation of a living individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of the right to freedom of speech and expression of another and both have to be harmonized and balanced in as much as no amount of damages can redeem the damage to reputation of any person and merely because there have been previous publications on the same issue, the same does not permit any repetitions of prima facie defamatory insinuations against him. CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 21 of 76