Renukaswamy murder case: Karnataka High Court slams media ‘carnival’, orders Centre to act on Darshan’s plea
Actor Darshan Thoogudeepa claimed that media channels were recreating court proceedings in the Renukaswamy murder case and the alleged crime scene by using graphics and AI-prompted animations.
The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperiled, the Karnataka High Court said, hearing Darshan Thoogudeepa's plea. (File Photo) The Karnataka High Court last month directed the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) to consider and pass appropriate orders on a complaint filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, who alleged that media channels violated earlier injunction orders restraining them from airing details about the Renukaswamy murder case, in which he is an accused.
“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 Sachin Shankar Magadum said in an order dated April 30. The order was made public on Friday.
“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’,” the court added.
The court has now directed the ministry to examine the impugned broadcasts and digital content links provided by Thoogudeepa in his complaint and if found violative of Rule 6 of the Programme Code framed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to take immediate action against the media houses, by regulating, suspending, prohibiting or directing discontinuance of such telecast, broadcast, streaming or dissemination, pending enquiry and final consideration of the complaint.
Under sections 19 and 20 of the Act, the central government has the power to regulate, prohibit or suspend transmission of programmes which are not in conformity with the Programme Code or which affect public order, decency or the administration of justice.
Renukaswamy, a fan of the actor, was allegedly murdered for sending lewd comments to the actor’s friend, Pavitra Gowda, on Instagram. His body was discovered near a stormwater drain in Bengaluru in June 2024. Thoogudeepa, who was arrested along with other accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, was denied bail by the Supreme Court last year.
What is Darshan Thoogudeepa’s complaint?
On January 16, Thoogudeepa filed a complaint before the I&B Ministry, referring to over 1,000 YouTube links and seeking action against erring channels. Since ‘no action’ was taken by the authorities, Thoogudeepa approached the high court. In his petition, he contended that the media was in “gross violations” of injunction orders passed by the Karnataka High Court and the city civil court in 2024, which had restrained the media from airing sensitive information related to the case.
Darshan Thoogudeepa also claimed that media channels have been recreating court proceedings and the alleged crime scene by using graphics and AI-prompted animations, and holding panel discussions weighing the evidence recorded by the trial court.
Media channels have wilfully and maliciously been broadcasting/publishing the proceedings and case-related information, violating the rights guaranteed to him under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, the plea stated. Moreover, the “contumacious conduct” of media channels has not only impacted the pending trial of the petitioner but has also violated the basic ethical code of journalism, it added.
‘Media reportage can’t…prejudice the course of justice’
The bench referred to judgments of the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and courts in the United Kingdom and France. “These authorities converge on a singular constitutional principle that media reportage cannot be permitted to supplant judicial determination or prejudice the course of justice,” the court said.
Perusing the clippings produced by Darshan Thoogudeepa wherein the broadcast media has gone to the extent of recreating courtroom proceedings, the bench said, “Such conduct amounts to a calculated media-driven adjudication, fostering a parallel narrative and engendering prejudicial pre-trial publicity.”
The order added, “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 wilful disobedience of binding injunctions and in a manner that tends to interfere with the administration of justice.”
‘Serious threat to petitioner’s right to a fair trial’
In its order, the bench emphasised that freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value, but, when it degenerated into “media-driven adjudication”, it ceased to be a safeguard of democracy and became 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,” Justice Magadum opined.
“The ongoing media narrative poses a serious threat to the petitioner’s right to a fair trial under Article 21,” the court stated.
Noting that material in the complaint and on record discloses prima facie violations of statutory provisions and judicial orders. Justice Magadum said, “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 then held that authorities were under a statutory obligation to consider and act upon the actor’s complaint. Accordingly, it directed the authorities to also examine the necessity of prohibition of broadcast, suspension/revocation of permissions or licences, imposition of penalties and initiation of such further statutory proceedings as are permissible in law.
Further, it directed that authorities ensure strict compliance with Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Rule 3(7)(b) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Share
