Observing that reports aired on TV channels and published on digital platforms about the ongoing murder trial of Kannada actor Darshan, the main accused, “prima facie amount to a calculated, media-driven decision that is against norms and against court orders”, the Karnataka High Court ordered the central government to respond to a complaint filed by the actor against media houses.
“Unfortunately, the recorded material, especially the clippings produced, captures a disturbing trend where the broadcast media has gone to the extent of re-enacting courtroom proceedings, where only the face of the presiding judge is masked, while the faces of the accused and defense attorneys are openly displayed,” the court said.
Such programs, the court said, are televised on every day of the hearing, turning the “ongoing trial” into a form of “public spectacle.”
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order and partially allowed the petition filed by Darshan, who is accused number 2 in the 2024 Renukaswamy murder case.
Darshan sought directions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to act on his complaint filed in January 2026 against media houses under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks Regulations (CTNR) Act, 1995, CTN Rules, Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, IT Digital Media Rules2021.
In his petition, the actor claimed that though the process remained in its infancy, television and digital platforms were leading the media process, spreading speculations, selective leaks and unverified claims, shaping public opinion, undermining due process and violating media laws.
The petition further states that despite the interim orders of the civil court and the High Court which restrained the disclosure of confidential prosecution material, several TV channels and digital platforms continued to broadcast such content in violation of the orders.
“Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value. However, when it degenerates into mediated decision-making, it ceases to be a guarantee 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 is threatened. The courts cannot allow the course of justice to be overshadowed by the lights…”Justice Sachin Shankar MagadumHigh Court of Karnataka
The continued telecast of such content, regardless of existing court orders, reflects “blatant disregard for judicial authority” and contributes to “creating a carnivalesque atmosphere of justice”, Justice Magadum said, noting that “such conduct amounts to a calculated media-driven judgment that encourages parallel narratives and creates pre-trial bias”.
The court also said that such broadcasts which “border on captioned litigation” cannot be accepted in a system governed by the rule of law, especially when they are broadcast in willful disobedience of binding court orders and in a manner tending to obstruct the administration of justice and prima facie contempt of court.
The material produced along with the complaint unmistakably discloses the violation of the Television Program Code and such broadcast is itself illegal and calls for regulatory action under Sections 19 and 20 of the CTNR Act, the court said.
The court directed the ministries to review the actor’s complaint and take immediate action within six weeks by regulating, suspending, banning or directing the interruption of such telecast, streaming, etc., pending investigation and final consideration, besides asking them to review the necessity of banning broadcasts, suspending or withdrawing permits or licenses, imposing penalties, etc., as permitted by law.
Published – 15 May 2026 17:12 IST
