Bangalore District Court
Ananda G Alias Ananda Guruji vs Speed News Kannada Media Broadcast ... on 12 August, 2024
1 O.S.No.4103/2021
KABC010160322021
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.4103/2021
PLAINTIFF : G. Ananda @ Ananda Guruji,
S/o. Gangaraju Swamiji,
aged about 39 years,
Trustee,
Shaneshwara Swamy Trust,
Dombarahatti,
Gowdagere Post,
Yediyur Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. S.M. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANT : Speed News Kannada Media
Broadcast Private Limited,
No.47, 1st Floor, Sy.No.12/1,
Uttarahalli Main Road,
Above ICICI Bank,
Bengaluru 560001,
2 O.S.No.4103/2021
Represented by its Director.
(By Sri.V.K Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 06/08/2021
suit
Nature of the suit : Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of : 18/12/2023
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 12/08/2024
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 0 06
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's suit for injunction to restrain the defendant media channel or their agents or anybody acting through them from telecasting or publishing, or circulating, or transmitting or expressing in any manner anything pertaining to the plaintiff, which are defamatory or derogatory to the character and reputation of his character.
3 O.S.No.4103/2021
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows :-
The plaintiff's contention is that, the plaintiff is the managing trustee of the trust named Sri Shaneshwara Swamy Trust, which is a public charitable religious trust, which was registered on 09/01/2009. In fact, it was the trust formed by one Sri. Gangaraju Swamiji, for which the plaintiff herein and another named R. Kumar were the trustees. As the original managing trustee or founder trustee Sri. Gangaraju Swami died, thus presently same is headed by the plaintiff herein. The purpose of the said charitable trust is to promote the activities related to Hindu Dharma, in particularly such as construction of temple, allowing the disciples to worship the deity of Shaneshwara and establish the endowment acts to conduct religious discourses, touching upon the Indian Philosophy, culture for the benefit of all sections of society. The original trustee Sri. Gangaraju Swamiji, who had gifted his self acquired land bearing Sy.No. 18/13 4 O.S.No.4103/2021 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Kattigehalli village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, for the purpose of construction of temple. The original trustee himself built the temple of Sri. Shaneshwara Swamy and also community hall in the said premises, same is being managing by the trustees. The Trust is serving to the public at large by conducting the day-to- day pooja in the temple, conducting 'Nitya Anna Dasoha to fed to the devotees who visits to the temple, and also conducts several fares fares at Dombarahatti village. Further, maintains the "Goshala" having more than 60 varieties of indigenous breeds, by having them encourages breeding and also provides as shelter to aged and abandoned cows. Sponsors the poor students to pursue their study and also conducting several religious ceremonies and even carries the mass planting and also during the Covid they have sponsored the food kit to the needy through the trust. By considering the various social activities, allegedly received the appreciation from 5 O.S.No.4103/2021 the various organization, also got the honorary Doctorate in Astrology from the Indian Institute of Oriental Heritage, Calcutta in the year 2018, got the Atal Bihari Vajpayee award in the year 2019, and he has been felicitated by the former C.J. of Sikkim High Court. Also allegedly visited the said place by many dignitaries, who have appreciated the work carried out by the trust. When such being the fact, the defendant like media channels, who with intent to harass the plaintiff and to cause financial extortion, allegedly created some morphed videos by using deep fake technology, have threated to telecast the same in their media channels to defame and damage the reputation and character of the plaintiff herein. In this regard they have also allegedly caused a threat to the plaintiff to leave the trust by resigning and handing over all the properties of the trust. As he could not resist the illegal activities of the said media channel, who are threatening to telecast some photographs and videos, thus he claimed that there was 6 O.S.No.4103/2021 a cause of action to file the present suit seeking injunctive decree. Thus his contention is that the media has the right of freedom under Article 19 but in the meantime, they must appreciate that the every individual has the right to life under Article 21, at the cost of right of an individual, somebody cannot cause damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and its institution. Thus sought the decree for injunction.
3. The defendant media channel filed its written statement contending that, the plaintiff cannot seek such an injunctive relief against the media channel. The defendant contended that they are having materials in proof of footage and pictures pertaining to the plaintiff, as per the Constitution of India the Journalist have free to report or publish the real facts to sensitize the public. Thus the suit in the present nature is not maintainable, which deserves to be dismissed. They denied of blackmailing the plaintiff by using any morphed videos. But they contended that they have a proof of material to 7 O.S.No.4103/2021 show that, the plaintiff herein had involved in activities which is against to the immoral and unethical being the trustee of a trustee of the Temple. Thus they have a right and duty to bring the said facts into the knowledge of the devotees of the Sri Shaneshwara temple. The defendant condemned the plaintiff for blaming the media people, wherein they contended that, in fact, media is playing vital role in bringing the true facts into the knowledge of the public to sensitize them and consequently sought the damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for making false, frivolous allegation against the defendant - media channel. They contended that they have a genuine materials and they are going to telecast the same, in which the plaintiff has no right to restrain them from doing the same. They contended that, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thus prays to dismiss the suit.
4. By considering the pleadings of the parties this court was pleased to frame following issues :- 8 O.S.No.4103/2021
1. Does the plaintiff proves that the defendant is attempting to telecast or broadcast the morphed video footages, based on which having plan to express the sarcastic defamatory opinion on the plaintiff?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that, if the defendant telecasted the video footage with them, based on which they passed any opinion on the plaintiff that would causes the damage to the reputation and character of the plaintiff?
3. Does the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from telecasting or broadcasting any of the videos with the defendant as they are defamatory to the character and reputation of the plaintiff herein?
4. What order?
5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and in all produced 11 documents which were marked as Ex.P.1 to 11. Despite giving sufficient opportunities, the defendant has not 9 O.S.No.4103/2021 chosen to cross examine the PW.1 and not chosen to lead its evidence. Thus cross of PW.1 and defendant's evidence are taken as nil.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. As the defendant remained absent, thus arguments of defendant was taken as nil.
7. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 3 : Since all the issues are interconnected, thus they are taken up for common discussion.
9. The plaintiff's contention is that, plaintiff is a managing trustee of the trust named Sri Shaneshwara Swamy Trust at Dombarahatti, which is originally 10 O.S.No.4103/2021 created by the founder trustee named Sri. Gangaraju Swamiji. With his great effort he is claims to have built temple and Dasoha Bhavan and also the said trust claims to have involved in planting of saplings and conducting the drive for afforestation, claims to have built Dasoha Bhavan, wherein they feed the disciples by conducting 'Anna Dasoha' every day. And also conducts the fare on every year. And also put up the 'Goshala' by placing the various indigenous breeds and also provides the shelter to the abandoned and aged cows. They also claiming that they do financial assistance to the poor student sot pursue their education. But, to cause damage to his reputation, the defendant media channel by using the deep fake technology allegedly created some videos, and causing threat to the plaintiff to publish the same in public domain, if their demand of paying money is not met. Also allegedly threatening to telecast the same in their media channel to damage his reputation and character in the society, thus they are threatening the 11 O.S.No.4103/2021 plaintiff herein to quit the trusteeship of the trust and consequently handover the administration. Thus the plaintiff expressed his serious apprehension that, such a morphed video or C.D. or voice records are telecasted in their media channel, that causes seriously causes hardship and damage to his reputation in the society, thus he sought the decree for injunction as sought in the suit.
10. The plaintiff to his case himself got examined as P.W.1, who filed his affidavit evidence, which is the replica of the plaintiff averments and also produced the Ex.P1 which is the trust deed and Ex.P2 is the gift deed of the original Swamiji Gangaraju, who gifted his self acquired property in favor of the trust. Ex.P3 to P10 are the news articles pertaining to the activities conducted by the trust committee, particularly their charitable activities. If these facts are considered, no doubt that the Sri Shaneshwara Temple Trust is the reputed known 12 O.S.No.4103/2021 trust in that locality. They have been involved in various charitable activities since quite long time.
11. The next question would be, the plaintiff contended that, it is the defendant media channel have created some morphed videos by using the deep fake technology. And they are threatening to telecast the same in their media channel on the condition that the plaintiff shall leave the post of managing trustee of the trust and he shall handover the entire trust properties in their name, failed which they are threatened to telecast the same. But the plaintiff to prove that what is the nature videos or photographs are created by using the deep fake? Does they are really defamatory to his reputation to his character is concerned produced no material. But if the written statement averments of the defendant are perused, in particularly the tone and tenor of the defendant's written statement is considered, they put the challenge to the plaintiff herein stating that 13 O.S.No.4103/2021 they have a material such as clippings and videos in respect of the activities of the plaintiff herein, they threatened to publish the same, as they have right to do so in the media,as their right to bring them into the knowledge of the public has been guaranteed Article 19 of the Constitution. If the said threat is considered, firstly, no doubt, as apprehended by the plaintiff herein, it is the defendant allegedly having some material in respect of activities of the plaintiff herein. Whether they are genuine, whether they are containing the true facts and how does they got them, there is no material placed by the defendant herein.
12. In fact except filing the written statement the defendant placed no material. If that aspect is considered, the defendant had all the opportunity to be before this Court to place their evidence to show that they are the media channels have a right to brought the true facts into the knowledge of the public to sensitize 14 O.S.No.4103/2021 them on if any illegal activities are being carried out by the plaintiff. But they missed an opportunity.
13. The plaintiff is an Archak and managing trustee of the trust which is involved into the various charitable activities. He approached this Court by alleging that the defendant media channel have crated a morphed video by using deep fake technology and causing threat to telecast in their media channel. Also allegedly put some condition and demand before the plaintiff. If the case of the the plaintiff is considered, he is before this court by pleading that there is a threat on him from the defendant media channel, who allegedly by creating some video is trying to put a pressure that if his demands are not met, they will be published in the in all public domain and in even in their media channel, if that aspects are considered the plaintiff by pleading the same and deposing before this court under a sworn affidavit proved that there was an existence of circumstances 15 O.S.No.4103/2021 where the defendant channel media channel is causing threat to telecast some videos which are defamatory to the character and reputation of the plaintiff. Though said video or no piece of material being placed by the plaintiff to show whether the alleged video is a defamatory to his character and reputation, but the defendant media channel in their written statement have categorically admitted that they are in possession of some material, according to them they are true, genuine and thus they have threatened to telecast the same on the ground that its their rights have been guaranteed under Article 19 of Indian Constitution to bring the true facts into the knowledge of the general public.
14. If the way the pleaded by the defendant is considered, of course, no doubt, that the media is the 4 th Pillar of the Indian Constitution, who have a duty to sensitize the public by bringing all true facts into their knowledge. But the defendant did not discloses the 16 O.S.No.4103/2021 nature of the material in their custody, also not disclosed the facts on what is the nature of illegal activities committed by the plaintiff and how does the media has got such video, is that they are the very personal videos of the plaintiff, in that event the defendant have no business to enter into the privacy of the plaintiff herein.
They cannot use the private videos of the plaintiff to cause damage to his reputation and character. The alleged act committed by the plaintiff may be immoral, but this Court is of the opinion that the defendant media channel if at all they are having any private videos of the plaintiff herein, they cannot telecast it on the ground that they have a right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. As even the right to privacy of the plaintiff has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In that event no one has the right to intrude into the privacy of the plaintiff. And by misusing such private videos no one has the right to cause a threat to the plaintiff. Thus this 17 O.S.No.4103/2021 Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved the case before this Court that the defendant media channel might be having some videos which are defamatory to the reputation and character of the plaintiff, by having the same may be causing threat. Such an activities of the defendant media channel is requires to be restrained by decreeing the suit for perpetual injunction. Otherwise, on the ground of the right of freedom of speech and expression, if the defendant is went ahead to telecast such videos, the amount of damages and hardship causes to the plaintiff cannot be compensated in any manner. Thus, this court felt, this is the fit case to fit case to exercise a discretionary to restrain the defendant, their agents or anybody acting through them from telecasting any of the videos, articles, news material which are defamatory to the reputation and character of the plaintiff. Thus I answer issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
18 O.S.No.4103/2021
15. Issue No.4 :- As the plaintiff proved his case, thus the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The defendant or any other person claiming under them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from broadcasting, telecasting or publishing or letting in circulation or expressing in any manner anything which are defamatory to the reputation and character of the plaintiff.
Office is to draw the decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 12th day of August, 2024 (GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY 19 O.S.No.4103/2021 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1: G. Ananda @ Ananda Guruji
(b) Defendant's side :
Nil
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Trust Deed dated 9/01/2009 Ex.P.2 Digitally certified gift deed dated 21/07/2010 Ex.P.3 Portion of newspaper Times of Karnataka Ex.P.4 Portion of newspaper dated 22/2/2017 Ex.P.5 Portion of newspaper dated 24/2/2017 Ex.P.6 Portion of newspaper dated 21/2/2017 Ex.P.7 Portion of newspaper Jayavardhini Ex.P.8 Portion of newspaper dated 01/03/2022 Ex.P.9 Portion of newspaper dated 12/12/2022 Ex.P.10 Portion of newspaper dated 01/03/2022 Ex.P.11 Notarized Aadhar card of plaintiff 20 O.S.No.4103/2021
(b) Defendant's side :
NIL Digitally signed by GANGADHARA GANGADHARA K N KN Date: 2024.08.27 11:23:45 +0530 XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.