Bengaluru, The High Court of Karnataka has directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to examine broadcasts and digital content related to Kannada actor Darshan in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case.
It has also asked them to take necessary action if any violations of the rules are found.
Darshan and his friend, actress Pavithra Gowda, are among the 17 accused in the Renukaswamy murder case. He is currently lodged in jail under judicial custody.
“Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to forthwith examine the impugned broadcasts and digital content relating to the petitioner and the subject crime. Upon being satisfied that the same are violative of Rule 6 of the Programme Code framed under the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995, they shall take immediate action in accordance with Sections 19 and 20 of the Act,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said in his order dated April 30, while partly allowing the petition.
“This may include regulating, suspending, prohibiting, or directing discontinuance of such telecast, broadcast, streaming, or dissemination, pending inquiry and final consideration of the complaint,” he added.
Darshan, in his petition, had claimed that he is aggrieved by a sustained and targeted media campaign in connection with the murder case.
He said that despite the trial being at a nascent stage, various television channels and digital platforms have indulged in media-driven adjudication, disseminating speculative narratives, selectively leaked materials, and unverified allegations, thereby shaping public perception and impairing the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.
Despite judicial interdictions, the petitioner alleged that the media continues to telecast content in violation of statutory provisions and binding court orders.
The court said the material placed on record, particularly the clippings produced, unfortunately, depicts a disturbing trend wherein the broadcast media has gone to the extent of recreating courtroom proceedings, with only the face of the presiding judge masked, while the faces of the accused and counsel are openly displayed.
Such programmes are telecast on every date of hearing, thereby converting pending judicial proceedings into a form of public spectacle, it said.
The judge said, “This Court cannot but observe that such conduct amounts to a calculated media-driven adjudication, fostering a parallel narrative and engendering prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The continued telecast of such content, in the teeth of subsisting injunction orders, reflects a blatant disregard for judicial authority and contributes to the creation of a ‘carnival atmosphere of justice.'”
By virtually staging courtroom scenes and projecting selective narratives, the media not only risks subverting due process but also erodes adjudicatory neutrality, impairing the petitioner’s right to a fair trial, he said.
The court further said that the material on record discloses violations of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Act, the Contempt of Courts Act, and the Information Technology Act and Rules.
“The material on record discloses prima facie violations of statutory provisions and judicial orders. The ongoing media narrative poses a serious threat to the petitioner’s right to a fair trial under Article 21,” it said.
“Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value; however, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it,” the judge said.
“The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights,” he added.
The court has also asked the ministries to examine the necessity of prohibition of broadcast, suspension or revocation of permissions or licences, imposition of penalties, and initiation of such further statutory proceedings as are permissible in law; to conduct an inquiry into the alleged violations of the Programme Code and pass appropriate orders.
It has directed them to file a compliance report before the court within twelve weeks.
The judge also stated that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if so advised.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
