Bangalore District Court
Sri.Charkravarthi Chandrachud vs Tv 9 Karnataka on 27 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 27th Day of November 2015
O.S.No. 7513/2014
Plaintiff : Sri.Charkravarthi Chandrachud
S/o Jayakumar Achar,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at S-91, Kirloskar Colony,
3rd Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
[By Sri. K.Srikanth Patil-Advocate.]
-Vs-
Defendants : 1. TV 9 Karnataka,
Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd.,
No.13/1, Rhenius Street,
Richmond Town, Civil Station,
Bangalore-560 025.
Represented by its
Managing Director,
2. Udaya TV and Udaya Vartegalu ,
Maran Towers, No.9,Brunton Road,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 025.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
3 ETV-Kannada News Division
#9/7, K.C.N.Bhavan, Yamuna Bai,
Road, Madhavanagar,
Bangalore-560 001.
2 O.S.No.7513/2014
Represented by its
Managing Director.
4 Samaya TV
#10/A, 5th Floor,
Chandrakirana Building
Kasturba Road,
Bangalore-560 001
Represented by its
Managing Director.
5 Suvarna TV 24X7
Suvarna News # 36, Crescent Road,
Opp. Mallige Hospital,
Near Shivananda Circle,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
6 Janashree News,
#351, Sallarpuria Towers-1,
Hosur Road, Koramangala,
Bangalore
Represented by its
Managing Director.
7 Raj News Kannada,
Raj Television Network Ltd.,
#16/1, K.K.M.P.Miller Tank Bund
Road, Vasantha Nagar,
Bangalore-560 052.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
8 Public TV
Write Man Media Pvt Ltd.,
4th Floor, B.M.T.C Building,
TTMC, Yeshwantpur Circle,
Banglaore-560 022.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
3 O.S.No.7513/2014
9 Kasturi News 24x7
Kasturi Media House,
#12 &12/1, Kasturba Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
10 BTV News
No.32/1-2, Cresent Tower,
Cresent Road, High Grounds,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
11 News 9
Associated Broadcasting Co. Ltd
No/13/1, Rhenius Street,
Richmond Town, Civil Station,
Bangalore-560 025.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
[D1, 3 to 11-Exparte]
[D2 by Sri.Sudhakar .B.-Advocate]
Date of institution of the suit 27.9.2014
Nature of the suit Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of 3.12.2014
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 27.11.2015
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
01 03 00
(Ravindra Hegde),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
4 O.S.No.7513/2014
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 11 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting, broadcasting any news, programs, live shows, panel discussions about the personnel life of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff is a B.E. graduate and has been a journalist for the last 18 years and he has authored a book and he has also actively taken part in water revolution movement and had initiated several social movements and has been columnist for many magazines and is also a script writer for various films and also working as Assistant Director for movies in Kannada and he is a full-fledged director of the movies and he is journalist, script writer, poet, director and columnist. The plaintiff has earned very good name, reputation, success and he has been appreciated by his colleagues. The defendants are Kannada News Channels actively involved in reaching the general public by broadcasting news, issues, political, social and other development in the society and have been viewed continuously by the society at large and therefore, the defendants have the capacity of reaching the general public by way of a breaking 5 O.S.No.7513/2014 news, panel discussions, special programs etc. The plaintiff was married to Ms. Shruthi who is a popular Kannada film artist on 6.6.2013 at Kollur. The marriage did not last long in view of the decree passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru holding the said marriage as null and void. As on today, there is no marital relationship between the plaintiff and Ms. Shruthi. But the relationship between the plaintiff and the artist is cordial. The plaintiff came to know from the media reports that a maid by name Smt.Shobha was working in the house of the artist Shruthi and she has complained about ill-treatment and harassment to the police and Ms. Shruthi also filed complaint against the said maid servant. The plaintiff is not concerned to the personal life of the artist Shruthi and he wishes to remain a well-wisher. The plaintiff was shocked to hear that an allegation was made against him alleging that plaintiff has instigated the said maid Smt. Shobha. In this background, the defendants started projecting the name of the plaintiff in this connection and they have contacted with the plaintiff on many occasion over phone for a live response and though the plaintiff was not interested to give any explanation to the false allegation, the plaintiff was compelled to speak as at the time of show the 6 O.S.No.7513/2014 plaintiff was projected to be root cause of the entire issue and in the said discussion and live show many personal issues relating to the plaintiff were discussed unnecessarily without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given the details of several such discussions, live shows made by the defendants in the plaint. The defendants have even tried to project the plaintiff as a depressed person, in the state of drunkenness and also projected like psychologically low person and also held panel discussion with some doctors calling it to be psychological disease or disorder. The defendants have dealt with the matter pertaining to the personnel life of the plaintiff. Some unknown hands are trying to tarnish the image of the plaintiff through the defendants. As the plaintiff was defamed, he has filed a suit in OS.No.3533/2014 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and temporary injunction has been granted. The defendants are more likely to telecast more news, programs and live shows about the personal life of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit praying to restrain the defendants from telecasting or broadcasting any news, programs, panel discussions about the personnel life of the plaintiff. It is stated 7 O.S.No.7513/2014 that if the defendants are not restrained, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury.
3. The defendant No.2 has appeared through counsel, but has not filed the written statement. The other defendants remained exparte.
4. Now the points that arises for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction prayed in the suit?
2) What decree or order?
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW.1 is examined. Ex.P1 to P19 are marked.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The case of the plaintiff is that he is the person having earned very good name, reputation and success and has been appreciated by his colleagues and is known for 8 O.S.No.7513/2014 hard work, dedication and commitment. According to the plaintiff with regard to his personal life, the defendants are publishing news, live shows and conducting programs and panel discussions and trying to project the plaintiff as a depressed person in the state of drunkenness and also projected him like psychologically low person. The plaintiff has stated that he has married Ms. Shruthi the popular Kannada film artist and the marriage has been cancelled by the decree of court holding the marriage as null and void and there is no marital relationship between them and even after such decree passed by the court, the relationship between the plaintiff and Ms. Shruthi had been cordial and there were no difference of opinion between the two and they remain well-wishers. It is stated that as per the media reports there was some dispute between the maid Smt.Shobha and Ms. Shruthi and in this difference, the defendants have brought the name of the plaintiff and have published many articles, news, programs etc., which are defaming the plaintiff and he had filed eve a suit for permanent injunction. Now, the plaintiff has stated that the defendants are to be restrained from publishing news, programs, live shows, panel discussions about the personal life 9 O.S.No.7513/2014 of the plaintiff and the defendants have no right to intrude into the right of privacy of the plaintiff and they have no right to use the personal and family photos of the plaintiff and there are public interest or social interest involved. After filing of the suit, though the summons issued, most of the defendants have remained absent. Only the defendant No.2 has appeared, but has not filed the written statement.
9. The plaintiff has given evidence as PW.1 and has stated the plaint averments. The plaintiff has produced the C.D. and several photographs showing the contents of the C.D. and also the writings therein as Ex.P1 to P18. Ex.P19 is the certified copy of the interim order passed by this court in another suit in OS.No.3533/2014.
10. On looking to the pleadings, evidence of PW.1 and the documents produced, the only contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants without having any right to intrude into the personal life of the plaintiff are publishing the photographs and telecasting news, programs by showing the plaintiff as drunkenness person and psychologically low person and is depressed etc., and are thereby publishing personal life of the 10 O.S.No.7513/2014 plaintiff which is not of any public interest or social interest. The defendants have not denied the contentions of the plaintiff by appearing and by filing the written statement, even the PW.1 is not cross-examined. The documents produced show that, there are several news and programs conducted with regard to the relationship of the plaintiff and Ms.Shruthi film artist and alleged involvement in the difference between Shruthi and Shobha etc. According to the plaintiff, these news are not of any public interest or social interest, but only an interference in his personal life by the defendants. The defendants have not denied the same.
11. The uncontraverted evidence of PW.1 and the documents produced show that the defendants are publishing news, programs, live shows and conducting panel discussions about the personal life of the plaintiff without his permission. The defendants have not defended their action by filing any written statement or by cross-examining PW.1. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants without having any right to interfere in the personal life of the plaintiff, are publishing news, programs etc. The counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 11 O.S.No.7513/2014 ILR 1987 Karnataka 100 - A.K.Subbaiah Vs. B.N.Garudachar, in this decision the Hon'ble High Court has discussed on Article 19 of the Constitution of India and considered the decisions. The Hon'ble High Court has held that:
When once the speech or statement made by a person amounts to violation of decency or morality or becomes defamatory, is right to freedom of speech and expression would be naturally controlled by corresponding duty he owes to another. In another decision, reported in AIR 1982 Madhya Pradesh 47
- Hari Shankar Vs. Kailash Narayan and others, the Hon'ble High Court has held that :
Injunction against publication of false and defamatory news cannot be refused on ground that reputation can be compensated by paying damages. On the contrary it will amount to granting license to publish defamatory news against payment of compensation.
It is also held that, Article 19(1)(a) does not give free hand to publish defamatory matter under the guise of free expression and freedom of press. In another decision reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4142 - J.Sudhir Chandrashekhar Vs. T.Lokaprakash, it is held that:
Publishing highly defamatory matter in newspaper without verifying the truth is opposed to journalistic ethics.12 O.S.No.7513/2014
Though these decisions are with regard to the news of defamation, they are applicable to the present facts, as according to the plaintiff, the defendants are publishing the news and programs with regard to personal life of the plaintiff and thereby intruding his personal life. Moreover, the defendants have not defended their case. Freedom of press does not permit the defendants to intrude into the right of privacy of the plaintiff and to publish his personal life without there being any public interest or social interest. Therefore, it is proper to grant permanent injunction prayed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- For the discussion made on point No.1, the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed. Accordingly, following order is passed :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. By decree of permanent injunction, the defendants are restrained from telecasting or broadcasting any news, programs, live shows, panel discussions about the personnel life of the plaintiff, which does not involve any public interest.13 O.S.No.7513/2014
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of November, 2015).
(Ravindra Hegde), XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Charkravathi Chandrachud List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 to 3 CD, CD containing Photographs and Transcripts of Video clips Ex.P4 & 5 CD and Two photographs Ex.P6 Transcripts of Video Ex.P7 CD Ex.P8 Three photographs Ex.P9 Transcripts of Video Ex.P10 CD Ex.P11 Two Photographs Ex.P12 CD Ex.P13 Two Photographs 14 O.S.No.7513/2014 Ex.P14 CD Ex.P15 Two Photographs Ex.P16 Transcript of Video Ex.P17 CD Ex.P.18 Two Photographs Ex.P.19 Certified copy of the Order sheet in O.S.No.3533/2014 List of witnesses examined for defendants:
Nil List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.15 O.S.No.7513/2014
(Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
By decree of permanent injunction, the defendants are restrained from telecasting or
broadcasting any news, programs, live shows, panel discussions about the personnel life of the plaintiff, which does not involve any public interest.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.