HC directs ministries to examine media coverage on Darshan case

Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has directed the ministries of information and broadcasting and electronics and information technology to examine broadcasts and digital content relating to actor Darshan after he filed a petition complaining of media-driven adjudication in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case, in which he is arraigned as accused number 2.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while partly allowing the petition, observed that upon being satisfied that the content is violative of Rule 6 of the Programme Code framed under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the ministries have to take immediate action in accordance with Sections 19 and 20 of the Act by regulating, suspending, prohibiting or directing discontinuance of such telecast, broadcast, streaming or dissemination, pending inquiry and final consideration of the complaint.

“The respondents shall consider the Jan 16 complaint, conduct an inquiry into the alleged violations of the Programme Code and pass appropriate orders under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act within six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the judge said.

In his petition, Darshan complained that despite the trial being at a nascent stage, several television channels and digital platforms indulged in media-driven adjudication, disseminating speculative narratives, leaked materials and unverified allegations, thereby engineering public perception and impairing his right to a fair trial.

According to him, despite restraint orders passed by the civil court vis-a-vis publication of confidential material and the high court’s order barring media from disseminating chargesheet material, media continues to telecast content in violation of statutory provisions and binding court orders.

Justice Magadum noted that the material placed on record, particularly the clippings, depicted a trend wherein broadcast media recreated courtroom proceedings, with only the face of the presiding judge was masked and faces of the accused and counsel were openly displayed. He noted that such programmes were telecast on every date of hearing, converting pending judicial proceedings into a form of public spectacle.

“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 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,” Justice Magadum observed, while issuing directions to the respondents.