Bengaluru court restrains media houses from publishing defamatory news about BJP MP Renukacharya

Read order: O.S No. 3822/2021 MP Renukacharya

LE Staff

Bengaluru, July 31, 2021: A Karnataka court has restrained defendants from publishing/ telecasting/ broadcasting/ disseminating/ distributing any statement or contents of an alleged CD or any other material referring to a BJP MLA negatively, defaming him or creating sarcastic views about him in any manner including showing the footages and pictures, till the next date of hearing.

By an order of ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction, the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, Ningouda B Patil made it clear that defendants are at liberty to publish/telecast/broadcast the statements which are not injurious to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff Renukacharya, who is the BJP MLA from Honnali constituency, had alleged that the defendant media organizations had published defamatory statements regarding explicit materials on their platforms and channels referring to him.

It was pleaded that such publication was injurious to his reputation and would malign his goodwill and reputation. 

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendants being legal entities from the media and press, because of their TRP rate, were crossing their line of limitation and thereby tarnishing the image of public personalities.

According to the counsel, the plaintiff is a reputed person involved in politics. If defendants broadcasted/telecasted/published any negative matter through an alleged CD or other materials, it impacts the public life of plaintiff and collapses his political career.

“The plaint averments and documents produced reveal that plaintiff is a peoples’ representative elected to the Assembly of the State. The documents produced by the plaintiff reveal that some defendants broadcasted the news which seems to create a negative opinion about him,” said the Court. 

Add. CCSJ Patil therefore reiterated that at this stage it can be held that, plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff compared to the defendants.

The Court after examining the plea and contentions said that defendants being the legal entities from press and media have the said fundamental right. But, the said right should be exercised carefully and cautiously as the same is subject to limitations and restrictions. 

The plaint pleadings of the plaintiff reveal that he is in public life elected to the Assembly. Under the circumstances, if defendants by taking undue advantage of the said fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, published/telecasted/broadcasted any derogatory or defamatory statement against the plaintiff or repeated the same, then it would damage his political career and thereby would cause irreparable loss to him, added the Court. 

Judge Patil went on to explain that Defendants have to enjoy their fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Baradakanta Mishra & Another v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Another. 

Accordingly, it was held that defendants cannot cross their limit in publishing or telecasting or broadcasting any statements or articles which ridicules and insults a person. 

The Court, therefore, proceeded to pass interim order restraining media houses from publishing any news referring to Renukacharya in a defamatory or sarcastic manner.