The Karnataka High Court directed the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Electronics and Information Technology to review media content on Darshan Thoogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder case, observing that ongoing coverage threatened his fair trial rights under Article 21.
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to review digital and broadcast content related to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case. Darshan, identified as accused number two, is currently being held in judicial custody.
While partly allowing the actor’s petition, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum directed the authorities to act under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act if the material violates Rule 6 of the Programme Code. The Court also ordered the ministries to regulate, suspend, prohibit, or discontinue such broadcasts when required, and directed them to file a compliance report within 12 weeks.
The Court observed,
“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 of the constitution,”
The Court noted that, as alleged, multiple television channels and digital platforms had launched a targeted media campaign against the actor. The petition claimed that although the trial is at an early stage, speculative stories, selectively shared information, and unverified allegations were being circulated repeatedly even after civil courts and the High Court issued restraining orders against the publication of confidential material.
After reviewing the material placed before it, including video clippings submitted along with the petition, the Court expressed concern that broadcasters were allegedly recreating courtroom proceedings.
The court said,
“The material placed on record, particularly the clippings produced, unfortunately depict a disturbing trend wherein the broadcast media has gone to the extent of recreating courtroom proceedings, with only the face of the presiding Judge being 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.”
Justice Magadum held that this type of reporting appears to amount to media-led adjudication, generating a parallel narrative that could prejudice the ongoing trial.
The Court also observed that the material on record indicates apparent breaches of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, along with potential violations of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Information Technology Act and associated rules.
Justice Magadum 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 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,”
The Court further stated that broadcast portrayals resembling “trial by headlines” cannot be accepted in a legal system based on the rule of law. It emphasized that judicial conclusions cannot be replaced by media reporting, and warned that dramatized depictions of court proceedings and selective coverage may undermine due process and the accused’s right to a fair trial.
The Court observed,
“Such broadcasts, which border on trial by headlines, cannot be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law, particularly when they are aired in willful disobedience of binding injunctions and in a manner that tends to interfere with the administration of justice,”
Reiterating that while freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy, it does not remain protected when used in a way that endangers fair judicial processes, the High Court cautioned against media outlets acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”
The Court added,
“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,”
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Court Rejects Actress Pavithra Gowda’s Bail Plea in Renukaswamy Murder Case
The decision also referred to an earlier warning issued by the High Court in 2024 against sensationalized reporting in pending matters. Justice Magadum noted that continuing to telecast such content despite court orders and statutory limits suggested a disregard for judicial directions, which could amount to contempt of court.
The judgment stated,
“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,”
The Court further criticised the authorities for not responding adequately to complaints filed by the actor regarding the broadcasts. It concluded that the alleged inaction was arbitrary and not legally sustainable.
“The failure to act is arbitrary and unsustainable. 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.”
As a result, the High Court directed the State government and MeitY to remove content involving Darshan if it is found to violate the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The Court also instructed authorities to apply penalties against the platforms concerned, suspend or revoke permissions and licences where necessary, and initiate proceedings as required by law.
The Court has asked for a comprehensive compliance report detailing the steps taken within 12 weeks.
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v Union of India & Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE