Karnataka High Court
Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath ... vs Karnataka State Disaster Management ... on 19 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1033
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Suraj Govindaraj
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.6738 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
JANAADHIKAARA SANGHARSHA PARISHATH (JSP)
REGD. TRUST AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION (NGO)
REPRESENTED TY ADARSH R IYER
MANAGING TRUSTEE AND PRAKASH BABU B K
MANAGING TRUSTEE, OFFICE NO.508/A/20
1ST FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086
(REPRESENTED PARTY- IN-PERSON)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADARSH R IYER, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. CHAIRPERSON
KARNATAKA STATE DISASTER
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
EX-OFFICIO-CHIEF MINISTER OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
-: 2 :-
BANGALORE CITY POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DIRECT TO R2 AND
3 TO REGISTER AN APPROPRIATE COMPLAINT UNDER THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS
(REGULATION) ACT, 1995 AND ITS RULES AS PER THE
COMPLIANT AT ANNEXURE-K AGAINST THE ERRING PRINT
NEWS AND DIGITAL MEDIA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. The petitioner is stated to be a non-governmental, non-profit organization constituted to fight against corruption prevailing in various systems of our country, to uphold and secure fundamental and legal rights of the citizens of our country and to uplift socially and economically oppressed classes. According to the petitioner, the deadly virus called Corona also known as -: 3 :- Covid-19 has engulfed the globe and India is also affected by the said pandemic. As a result, several steps have been taken to control the pandemic by various governmental and other authorities. That travel advisories have also been issued by the Government of India in consultation with World Health Organization (WHO) containing various protocols to be followed by both the Authorities as well as passengers. The advisories issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, as well as Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 11.03.2020 have also been adverted to by the petitioner.
2. That, even prior to that, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India has issued an advisory on 25.02.2020 to all private television channels as per Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity). In that regard, it is the -: 4 :- case of the petitioner that the television channels have violated not only the advisories issued from time to time by the Union Government, but also the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the above background, the petitioner made representation under the Act as per Annexure-K which is dated 23.04.2020 to the Authorized officer/Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, Bangalore-1, which is a complaint made against certain Media Houses. But there is deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in the context of Covid-19 Pandemic which has engulfed the country including the State of Karnataka. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorized officer/Commissioner of Police - respondent No.2 herein under the Act has not acted upon the complaint inasmuch as the said complaint has not even been registered. Hence, a direction is sought against respondent Nos.2 and 3 to register the complaint on the basis of Annexure-K -: 5 :- against erring print media news channels and digital media.
3. The petitioner has sought another direction to the Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority, represented by its Chief Secretary to register appropriate complaint before respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter called "Act of 2005") as per complaint at Annexure-L against erring print media news channels and digital media. Annexure-L - complaint is made to the Hon'ble Chairperson and Chief Minister of Karnataka, Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 1. The complaint is against Media houses for creating false alarms or warnings in respect of corona disaster which has led to a panic among certain sections of the society.
4. We have heard Sri.Adarsh R Iyer, who is the managing trustee of the petitioner-Organization who has -: 6 :- appeared in person and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 on advance notice and perused the material on record.
5. Sri.Adarsh Iyer, contend that the petitioner - organization has made two complaints, one, under the Act and the other under Section 54 of 'Act of 2005', to the respective respondent Authorities who are empowered to receive the complaints made by the petitioner and register the case against erring Media houses, television channels and other such entities who have violated Section 5 read with Rules 6 of the Act and Rules as well as Section 54 of the Act of 2005. The said complaints are at Annexure-K made under the provisions of the Act dated 23.04.2020 and Annexure-L also bearing the same date made to the Hon'ble Chair person of Karnataka, Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority under Section 54 of the Act of 2005. However till date, there has been no registration -: 7 :- of the complaints under the said Acts and no action has been taken by them. He, therefore, contended that a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ may be issued to the respondents to register the complaints made under Annexures-K and L respectively. In this regard, he drew our attention to Section 5 of the Act which speaks about Programme Code and Rule 6 of Rules, 1994 made under the said Act which elaborates as to what the programme code is and in that regard he pointed out Rule 6 (c) states that no program should be carried which contains attack on religious or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes. That the complaint is made against the television channels and other media channels with regard to telecasting and broadcasting news with regard to religious congregation called Tabligi Markaz at Nizamuddin, Delhi and as to how the persons who attended the said congregation were tested positive for -: 8 :- Covid-19 and their subsequent traveling to various parts of India which has resulted in affecting other people. That on account of the fact that the persons who attended the aforesaid congregation belong to a particular community, the said community was ill- spoken of and made responsible for the spread of corona virus in various parts of the country. He contended that such an erroneous and unwarranted telecasting and broadcasting is in total violation of programme code as stipulated in Section 5 read with Rule 6 (c) of the Act and Rules, 1994 and hence, petitioner made representation as per Annexure-K which has not been acted upon by respondent No.2. Hence, a direction may be issued in that regard. In the same way, petitioner pointed out that Section 54 of the Act of 2005 would squarely apply in the instant case and a complaint has been made as per Annexure-L but the same has not been taken note of. Hence, a direction may be issued in that regard.
-: 9 :-
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader who appeared on advance notice contended that the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. The petitioner herein cannot seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents for registration of complaints under the aforesaid Acts. That if such complaints have been registered, then, the petitioner would have to avail the remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity) for seeking registration of complaints in terms of Cr.P.C. and in the event, such complaints are not registered, then to seek remedy as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. He contended that when an efficacious, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, approaching this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not permissible. He submitted that liberty may be given -: 10 :- to the petitioner to avail such other remedies in law and the Writ Petition may be dismissed.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
8. We do not think it is just and proper to make any observations with regard to the complaints made by the petitioner, which are at Annexures-K and L. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner's complaints have not been taken cognizance of nor acted upon by the respective Authorities. In that regard, the only question that would arise for our consideration is, as to, whether, the petitioner can approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India so as to seek a direction to the respondents to take into consideration the complaints at Annexures-K and L and to act upon the same after registration.
-: 11 :-
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid context, in the case of SUDHIR BHASKARRAO TAMBE VS. HEMANT YASHWANT DHAGE AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has categorically held that if a person has a grievance that his complaint has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. It is further observed that, if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they -: 12 :- would be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions, in particular, when an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid context, in the case of SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in view of remedies available under the provisions of Cr.P.C which is in the nature of an alternative remedy, High Court should not encourage the practice of filing writ petitions and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and further observed that the High Court should infact discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when an alternative remedy lies under Section 36 and Section 154(3) before the police officer concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. -: 13 :-
10. In the instant case, the complaints made as per Annexure-K is stated to be in the context of Section 16 of the Act, which provides for punishment for contravention of provisions of the Act. Similarly Section 54 of the Act of 2005 is punishment for false warning. When the complaints have been made under the aforesaid Acts by the petitioner-Organization and the same have not been taken note of by the respondent- Authorities, petitioner has the remedy under the provisions of Cr.P.C., to follow up on the said complaints.
11. In view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we do not think it just and proper to entertain this writ petition so as to issue directions to the respondents as sought for by the petitioner.
12. In the circumstances, writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed, reserving liberty to the -: 14 :- petitioner to take steps in accordance with law insofar as Annexures-K and L-complaints are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*