Press Is A Watchdog; Cannot Become Judge, Jury & Executioner: Karnataka High Court On Media Trial Against Actor Darshan

The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus due to the statutory authorities' continued inaction over his formal complaint regarding a sustained, aggressive media campaign targeting him in connection with an ongoing murder investigation.

The Court observed that despite explicit interim injunctions from competent civil courts and previous restraining orders from the High Court against disseminating confidential charge sheet material, the media houses had gone to the extreme extent of virtually staging and recreating courtroom proceedings on every date of hearing that severely threatened the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21.

​The Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “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 imperiled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights.”

Advocate Pratham N appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to compel the Respondents (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Electronics) to register a formal complaint and issue show-cause notices to various media channels. It was prayed that appropriate action be initiated against non-compliant entities for the suspension of broadcasting licenses and imposition of penalties under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the Information Technology Act, alongside the relevant rules framed thereunder, or in the alternative, to refer the matter to the appropriate contempt jurisdiction.

The grievance of the petitioner arose from a sustained, aggressive, and targeted media campaign conducted by various television channels and digital platforms. The petitioner contended that, while the trial remained at a nascent stage, the media houses indulged in parallel trials and media-driven adjudication. They actively disseminated speculative narratives, selectively leaked investigative materials, and aired unverified allegations, which engineered a negative public perception and severely impaired the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair trial.

Prior to the filing of this petition, the petitioner and his spouse successfully secured interim injunction orders from competent civil courts to restrain the publication of confidential investigative material.

Furthermore, the High Court had previously passed an order restraining numerous media respondents from publishing, printing, airing, or disseminating confidential information contained in the charge sheet. The regulatory authorities were also directed to take strict action against any media entity found violating the statutory Programme Code and the Cable Television Network Rules.

Observations of the Court

The Court considered the following points: (i) Whether respondent authorities are under a statutory obligation to act on the complaint; (ii) Whether the impugned media reportage constitutes violation of statutory provisions and judicial orders; and (iii) Whether interference under Article 226 was warranted.

In analyzing the regulatory framework, the Court examined the strict provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and its accompanying Rules, noting that the statutory Programme Code strictly prohibits the broadcast of content that is defamatory, misleading, contemptuous of court, or designed to malign individuals.

The Court further highlighted that the Information Technology Act, along with its Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, places an absolute mandate on digital intermediaries to expeditiously remove or disable access to unlawful content within a prescribed period of thirty-six hours upon receiving actual knowledge via a court order or government notification.

Given that the authorities had previously undertaken to take action upon receiving a formal grievance, the Court observed that their continued inaction regarding the petitioner's complaint was manifestly arbitrary, contrary to their statutory mandate, and violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

The Court extensively reviewed both domestic and international jurisprudence regarding the dangers of media-driven adjudication eroding the fairness of judicial proceedings. It said that the freedom of the press is not absolute and must be tempered with responsibility, affirming that any publication tending to interfere with the due course of justice constitutes contempt.

“The continued broadcast in the teeth of civil court injunctions, orders of this Court and statutory prohibitions amounts to subversion of due process, erosion of adjudicatory neutrality, interference with administration of justice and prima facie contempt of court”, it said.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court expressed deep concern over the disturbing material placed on record, which revealed that broadcast media houses had gone to the extreme extent of virtually recreating courtroom proceedings.

Except for masking the face of the presiding judge, these channels openly displayed the faces of the accused and their counsel during every single date of the hearing. The Court observed that such conduct amounted to a calculated parallel trial that fostered a highly prejudicial narrative in willful disobedience of binding civil court injunctions.

By staging these courtroom scenes and projecting selective, unverified narratives, the media not only risked subverting due process but also threatened to erode adjudicatory neutrality, thereby severely impairing the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court answered all three formulated points in the affirmative. It held that the respondent authorities are under a mandatory statutory obligation to act on the complaint, that the impugned media reportage prima facie violates the Programme Code while amounting to a direct interference with the administration of justice, and that judicial intervention under Article is fully warranted to preserve the purity of the judicial process.

The Respondents were directed to examine the impugned broadcasts and digital content relating to the petitioner and the subject crime and, upon being satisfied that the same are violative of Rule 6 of the Programme Code framed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, 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 enquiry and final consideration of the complaint.

The official respondents must formally consider the complaint dated January, conduct a thorough enquiry into the Programme Code violations, and pass appropriate statutory orders within a strict period of six weeks.

The Court also reserved explicit liberty to the petitioner to independently initiate separate proceedings against the offending media houses under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directing the official respondents to submit a comprehensive compliance report to the High Court within twelve weeks.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition in part.

Cause Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:24468]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Pratham N

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath and CGSC Kumar MN

Click here to read/download the Judgment