Karnataka High Court
Mr. Darshan Srinivas vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 7473 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE THOOGUDEEPA SRINIVAS
#217, THOOGU DEEPA NILAYA,
F ROAD, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAGARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHAM N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
ROOM NO.655, A- WING,
SHASTRI BHAWAN,
Digitally NEW DELHI-110 001.
signed by
CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location:
HIGH 2. THE SECRETARY,
COURT OF MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND
KARNATAKA
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (MEITY),
ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6 CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL
A/W SRI. KUMAR M N, CGSC FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO REGISTER THE
COMPLAINT DATED 16.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ALL THE SAID MEDIA
CHANNELS AND TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS ACT 1995, CABLE
TELEVISION NETWORKS RULES 1995 R/W INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2000 AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL
MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.04.2026, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to register the
complaint dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure A) and issue
show cause notice to all the said Media Channels and
take action in accordance with Cable Television
Networks Act 1995, Cable Television Networks Rules,
1995 r/w Information Technology Act of 2000 and
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021;
B. Direct Respondent No.1 to initiate
proceedings for suspension of broadcast licenses or
imposition of penalties under Chapter III of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, against
non-complaint entities inter terms of the Complaint
dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure A) or/and refer the
prima facie contempt to the appropriate contempt
jurisdiction; and
C. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the facts, and circumstances
of the present case, in the interest of justice, equity
and fair play."
2. The petitioner, a Kannada film actor and
producer, is aggrieved by a sustained and targeted media
campaign in relation to Crime No.250/2024 registered on
09.06.2024 by Kamakshipalya Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, 1860.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that,
despite the trial being at a nascent stage, various
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
television channels and digital platforms have indulged in
media-driven adjudication, disseminating speculative
narratives, selectively leaked materials, and unverified
allegations, thereby engineering public perception and
impairing the petitioner's right to a fair trial.
4. The petitioner and his wife secured interim
injunction orders from competent civil courts restraining
publication of confidential material. Further, by order
dated 10.09.2024, this Court restrained respondent Nos.3
to 40 from disseminating charge sheet material and
directed respondent No.4 to take action in the event of
violation of the Programme Code.
5. This Court therefore deems it fit to extract the
ex parte order of injunction granted by the City Civil and
Sessions Court in O.S.No.6082/2024 and the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.24836/2024 on 10.09.2024. The
same read as under:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Order passed in O.S.No.6082/2024
"The defendants are hereby restrained by way
of this exparte ad-interim TI order, from airing,
printing, publishing any statement in relation to the
investigation being under taken by Kamakshipalya
Police against Sri. Darshan Srinivas who is arrayed
as accused No.2 and from airing, printing, publishing
any statement about the final report inter alia FSL
reports, confessional statements and holding
debate/discussion/interview on the final report
pertaining to FIR No.0250/2024 pending adjudication
before XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru."
Order passed in W.P.No.24836/2024
"ORDER
(i) Respondents 3 to 40 are hereby restrained
from publishing, printing, airing and disseminating
confidential information contained in the charge
sheet in relation to Crime No.0250/2024 registered
by the Kamakshipalya Police Station, till the next
date of hearing.
(ii) Respondent No.1 to communicate this order
to respondents 3 to 40.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Needless to state that respondent No.1 to take
appropriate action against respondents 3 to 40, if
they telecast, print, air or publish any statements in
violation of the Cable Television Network Rules,
1994."
6. Despite these judicial interdictions, it is alleged
that the media continues to telecast content in violation of
statutory provisions and binding court orders.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned CGSC for the respondents. Perused the records.
The following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether respondent authorities are under a
statutory obligation to act on the complaint dated
16.01.2026?
(ii) Whether the impugned media reportage
constitutes violation of statutory provisions and
judicial orders?
(iii) Whether interference under Article 226 is
warranted?
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Findings on Point Nos.(i) to (iii):
8. For the sake of convenience, the relevant
provisions are extracted as under:
"Section 79 (3) (b) of the Information Technology
Act, 2000
79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain
cases.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force but subject to the provisions of
sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be
liable for any third party information, data, or
communication link made available or hosted by him.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if- (a)
the function of the intermediary is limited to providing
access to a communication system over which
information made available by third parties is transmitted
or temporarily stored or hosted; or
(b) the intermediary does not-
(i) initiate the transmission,
(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information contained in
the transmission;
(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while
discharging his duties under this Act and also observes
such other guidelines as the Central Government may
prescribe in this behalf.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if-
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or
aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or
otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;
(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being
notified by the appropriate Government or its agency
that any information, data or communication link
residing in or connected to a computer resource
controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit
the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously
remove or disable access to that material on that
resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the
expression ―third party informationǁ means any
information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity
as an intermediary.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2024 Digital Media Code)
Rules,
Rule 3 (7) (b) an intermediary, on whose computer
resource the information is stored, hosted or published,
upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order
by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified
by the Appropriate Government or its agency under
clause (b) of
sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host,
store or publish any unlawful information, which is
prohibited under any law for the time being in force in
relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
India; security of the State; friendly relations with
foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in
relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to
an offence relating to the above, or any information
which is prohibited under any law for the time being in
force.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Provided further that if any such information is hosted,
stored or published, the intermediary shall remove or
disable access to that information, as early as possible,
but in no case later than thirty-six hours from the receipt
of the court order or on being notified by the Appropriate
Government or its agency, as the case may be.
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain
programmes in public interest.--Where 2 [any authorised
officer], thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the
public interest, he may, by order, prohibit any cable
operator from transmitting or re-transmitting 3 [any
programme or channel if, it is not in conformity with the
prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 and
advertisement code referred to in section 6 or if it is]
likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language,
caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional
groups or castes or communities or which is likely to
disturb the public tranquillity.
20. Power to prohibit operation of cable television
network in public interest.--4 [1] Where the Central
Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in
public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable
television network in such areas as it may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. 5
[(2) Where the Central Government thinks it necessary
or expedient so to do in the interest of the-- (i)
sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India;
or (iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State;
or (iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by
order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-
transmission of any channel or programme.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
(3) Where the Central Government considers that any
programme of any channel is not in conformity with the
prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or
the prescribed advertisement code referred to in section
6, it may by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission
or re-transmission of such programme].
Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
Rule 6 (1)
(d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate,
false and suggestive innuendos and half truths;
(e) Is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains
anything against maintenance of law and order or which
promote-anti-national attitudes;
(f) Contains anything amounting to contempt of court;
(i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person
or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral
life of the country ;"
9. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995 read with the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
prescribes a strict regulatory regime. Rule 6 of the
Programme Code prohibits programmes which are
defamatory, misleading, contemptuous of court, prejudicial
to public order, or which malign individuals, including
those falling within Rule 6(1)(d), (e), (f) and (i).
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. Sections 19 and 20 of the Act empower the
authorities 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.
11. Further, Section 79(3)(b) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 mandates that intermediaries, upon
receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content, must
expeditiously remove or disable access to such material.
This obligation is reinforced by Rule 3(7)(b) of the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which requires
removal within 36 hours of receipt of a court order or
governmental notification.
12. The Trial Court, by order dated 10.09.2024,
directed respondent No.4 to take action upon violation of
the Programme Code. Further, the statement recorded on
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
09.09.2024 reflects a clear undertaking that action would
follow upon receipt of a complaint.
13. The petitioner having submitted a complaint
dated 16.01.2026, the continued inaction on the part of
the respondent authorities is ex facie arbitrary, contrary to
statutory mandate, and violative of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation.
14. The issue of "trial by media" has engaged
judicial attention across jurisdictions. The Bombay High
Court in Nilesh Navalakha vs. Union of India1
cautioned against excessive media activism eroding the
fairness of judicial proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in In Re: Harijai Singh2 underscored that freedom
of press is not absolute and must be tempered with
responsibility. Further, in P.C. Sen (in Re)3, it was held
1
2021 SCC Online Bom 56
2
(1996) 6 SCC 466
3
AIR 1970 SC 1821
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
that any publication tending to interfere with the due
course of justice constitutes contempt.
15. The dangers of prejudicial publicity have been
succinctly articulated in global jurisprudence. In Sheppard
vs. Maxwell4, the United States Supreme Court
deprecated media excesses which transformed the judicial
process into a "carnival atmosphere of justice", holding
that massive and pervasive prejudicial publicity subverts
due process. In Nebraska Press Association vs.
Stuart5, it was emphasized that the right to a fair trial is
the most fundamental of freedoms, requiring insulation
from prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
16. The English position is equally stringent. In
Attorney-General vs. BBC6, it was held that publications
giving rise to a "real and substantial risk of prejudice"
constitute contempt. The celebrated dictum in R vs.
4
384 U.S. 333 (1966)
5
427 U.S. 539 (1976)
6
(2007) EWCA Civ 280
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy7, it was held that
"justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be
done" reinforces that perception of fairness is integral to
adjudicatory legitimacy. Further, in Allenet de Ribemont
vs. France8, it was held that public narratives imputing
guilt prior to trial violate the presumption of innocence.
17. These authorities converge on a singular
constitutional principle that media reportage cannot be
permitted to supplant judicial determination or prejudice
the course of justice.
18. 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,
7
(1924) 1 KB 256
8
(1995) 20 EHRR 557
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
thereby converting pending judicial proceedings into a
form of public spectacle.
19. This Court cannot but observe that such
conduct amounts to a calculated media-driven
adjudication, fostering a parallel narrative and
engendering prejudicial pre-trial publicity. 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", as noticed in Sheppard v.
Maxwell (supra). By virtually staging courtroom scenes
and projecting selective narratives, the media not only
risks subverting due process but also erodes adjudicatory
neutrality, impairing the petitioner's right to a fair trial.
20. 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
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
willful disobedience of binding injunctions and in a manner
that tends to interfere with the administration of justice.
21. 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.
22. The material on record unmistakably discloses
violations of Rule 6(1)(d), (e), (f) and (i) of the
Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995. Such broadcasts are per se illegal
and invite regulatory action under Sections 19 and 20 of
the Act. The acts further attract the mischief of Section
2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
digital amplification of such content attracts Section
79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read
with Rule 3(7)(b) of the Intermediary Rules, 2021.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
23. The complaint dated 16.01.2026 imposes a
mandatory obligation on respondent authorities. 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.
24. 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.
25. In view of the foregoing reasons, the points
formulated are answered accordingly:
Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative, holding
that respondent authorities are under a statutory
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
obligation to consider and act upon the complaint dated
16.01.2026 in accordance with the provisions of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Rules
framed thereunder and the applicable provisions of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and allied Rules.
Point No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative, holding
that the impugned media reportage and telecasts, prima
facie, constitute violations of Rule 6 of the Programme
Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994,
apart from amounting to interference with administration
of justice and violation of subsisting judicial orders.
Point No.(iii) is answered in the affirmative, holding
that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the
case to ensure enforcement of statutory obligations,
preservation of the petitioner's right to fair trial and
maintenance of the purity of judicial process.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468
WP No. 7473 of 2026
HC-KAR
26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith 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.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the complaint dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure-A), conduct an enquiry into the alleged violations of the Programme Code and pass appropriate
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468 WP No. 7473 of 2026 HC-KAR orders under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The respondents shall 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.
(v) Respondents shall 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.
(vi) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if so advised.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24468 WP No. 7473 of 2026 HC-KAR
(vii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall file a compliance report before this Court within Twelve (12) weeks.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2