Bangalore District Court
Dr Rajesh Gowda C M vs M/S Powersmart Media (Opc) Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2024
KABC010282392021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-9) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024.
PRESENT:
Sri HAREESHA A., B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.6906/2021
PLAINTIFFS : 1. C.M. Rajesh Gowda,
S/o. C.P. Mudalagiriyappa,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.226, 15th 'C'
Cross, II Stage, II Phase,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru - 560086.
2. M/s. Shantha Industrial
Enterprises,
A Partnership Firm having
its Office at No.1, Malavalli
Chikkanna Charities
Building, Subedhar
chatram Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru - 560020.
Represented by its Partner
Sri. B.H. Satish.
(By Sri B. Vachan, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.6906/2021
DEFENDANT : M/s. Powersmart Media
(OPC) Pvt. Ltd.,
Called as Power TV., No.7,
Old No.21, 11th Main, I
Stage, I Phase, Gokula,
Bengaluru - 560054.
Represented by its M.D.
Rakesh Sanjeeva Shetty.
(By Sri R.K.B.K., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 18-12-2021
Nature of the Suit : Injunction Suit.
Date of the commencement : 04-04-2022
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 15-02-2024
was pronounced
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
-----------------------------------------
Total duration : 2 year/s, 1 months, 26 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed present suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants its agents, employees, representatives, henchmen or anybody claiming through or under it from transmitting any Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.6906/2021 video, documentary, snippets, breaking news, news special, news scroil, paid promotion etc., through its television channel, print media, social media or any direct or indirect method against the plaintiffs.
2. The succinct narrative of the plaintiff's contentions is as follows:
The plaintiff No.1, as on the date of suit was a Member of Legislative Assembly from Sira Constituency having been elected from Bharatiya Janatha Party in the bye election held in the year 2020 and term of the plaintiff No.1 was till the mid year of 2023. The father of the plaintiff No.1 was a Member of Parliament from Chitradurga Lok Sabha Constituency. The plaintiff No.2 is a partnership firm, in which the plaintiff No.1 is one of the partner. The defendant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and running a television channel in the name and style 'Power TV'. It is averred that, the land comprised in Sy.No.174 and 175 of Kethamaranahalli village and Sy.No.59 of Yeshwanthapura village, Bengaluru was originally belongs to M/s. Mahalakshmi Woolen and Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.6906/2021 Silks Mills Company Limited. The aforesaid company
went into winding up as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Company Petition No.8/1965 and the above properties were allotted to one Mr. Sundaramurthy. The said Sundaramurthy was adjudged as an insolvent, the properties were sold by way of public auction. In the public auction, the plaintiff No.2 had purchased a total extent of land measuring 2,86,458 sq.ft comprised in Sy.Nos.147 and 175 of Kethamaranahalli village and part of Sy.No.59 of Yeshwanthapura village.
3. It is further contended that, subsequent to that, the City Improvement Trust Board, Bengaluru had acquired the land which was purchased by the 2 nd plaintiff for formation of layout called "Further Extension of Mahalakshmi Layout" vide preliminary notification dated:25.3.1975 and final notification dated:15.7.1977. The authority has taken the possession of the property on 8.5.1978 with a condition that, land will be re- conveyed. The Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) being successor of City Improvement Trust Board used Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.6906/2021 the said lands for formation of sites and has allotted the same to beneficiaries. It is alleged that, contrary to the well settled principles of law, the notice of acquisition and award was not issued to 2nd plaintiff. Further, the acquisition of law was not in-accordance with law. It is further contended that, contrary to the assurance, the BDA did not re-convey the land to the plaintiff No.2.
4. The diligent efforts undertaken by the second plaintiff to secure the re-conveyance of the land and initiate industrial activities, through multiple engagements with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), proved to be futile. Faced with this impasse, the BDA sought the legal expertise of Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshman, a distinguished legal authority who has served as a Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and as the Former Chairman of the Law Commission of India. Upon thorough examination of the pertinent cases and a comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter, Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshman, vide his opinion dated:19.3.2014 opined that the acquisition proceedings in question are vitiated and are Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.6906/2021 not in-accordance with law. Further he opined that, as the acquisition is vitiated, as the lands cannot be re- conveyed as they have already been allotted to beneficiaries, based on direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru in W.P.No.45695/2011 (BDA) in similar case, opined that alternative land commensurate to the value of the land acquired in lieu of cash compensation be given.
5. It is further contended that, on the basis of said opinion, the BDA vide Resolution bearing No.BDA/Commissioner/713/2014-15 dated:5.1.2015 ordered that land measuring an extent of 1,23,057 sq.ft be allotted in favour of plaintiff No.2. Accordingly, the BDA has conveyed an extent of 10,091.93 sq.mtrs of developed sites to plaintiff No.2 vide Sale Deed dated:29.01.2015 registered as document bearing No.BDA-1-04979-2015-16 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru. The BDA has put the plaintiff No.2 in possession of the said sites by issuing possession certificate dated: 16.2.2016 and in pursuance of the same, the katha certificate issued in favour of plaintiff Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.6906/2021 No.2. Subsequently, the said allotment made by the BDA was challenged by filling Public Interest litigation before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru in W.P.No.6682/2016, on several grounds. The said Public Interest Litigation was came to be dismissed on the ground that, there is no ulterior motive or illegality in the re allotment order. Thereafter, the complaint has been lodged with the Anti Corruption Bureau against the plaintiff No.2 making several allegations and after investigation, it submitted a closer report stating that, there is no substance in the allegations. In the midst of these circumstances, it is contended that the defendant, a media channel entity, is accused of having produced a documentary and disseminated promotional headlines as follows:
''(a) How many crores has been pocketed by son of former Member of Parliament?
(b) Secret of compensation of valuation acres of land.
(c) Fraud committed against Court, BDA and BMRCL by young Legislator.
(d) Crores looted by stating that not here, not there.
Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.6906/2021
(e) Unseen and unheard breaking news.
(f) deadly scam of bye election landlord about to explode''
6. Further it is contended that, snippets stating the above are being transmitted with a further statement that detailed documentary about the same would be aired. Further, the defendant has also filed a Caveat before this court on 12.11.2021 stating that they intend to transmit the said documents. It is alleged that the defendant has been reckless and malicious in preparing the said documentary. The conclusions reached by the defendants are contrary to the facts and available records and the sites sold by the BDA in favour of plaintiff No.2 has been acquired by KIADB for formation of Bengalur Metro II Phase and the defendant No.2 had received compensation. It is averred that, the plaintiff No.1 being a elected member of Legislative Assembly ia a responsible and respectable person. The plaintiffs have not committed any fraud or illegality as it being portrayed by the defendant. Therefore, if the defendant is permitted to transmit the said video and Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.6906/2021 documentary, it would caused in incalculable damages to the reputation and respect of the plaintiffs and it would affect the chances of re-election of the plaintiff No.1 in the election to be held in 2023. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for aforesaid reliefs by filing present suit.
7. In response to the summons, the defendants entered appearance thorough their counsel and filed detailed written statement by refuting the plaint averments and justifying their action. It is specifically contended that, the plaintiff has filed present suit with a malafide intention to curb the fundamental rights over the defendant as enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, which gives right to every citizen, media regarding freedom of speech and expression. The defendant has questioned the legal entity of plaintiff No.2 in view of retirement of original partners and induction of the new partners in the year 2003. Further it is contended that, the plaintiff No.2 partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner G.K.Srinivas has filed a claim petition on 5.10.1977, Cont'd..
- 10 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
claiming compensation of Rs.58,14,160/- and the Special Land Acquisition officer Bengaluru Development Authority issued award notice dated:4.6.1989. It is further contended that, the original partners of plaintiff No.2 had not applied for re-allotment of alternative lands/ sites, instead of that they applied for compensation. The Land Acquisition of Office had deposited the compensation amount in the court in LAC proceedings No.83/1987. In the LAC proceedings, the plaintiff No.2 partnership firm was placed exparte vide order dated:18.2.2014, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further it is contended that, in the year 1994 the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, vehemence through Karnataka Act 17 of 1984 through which Section 38 -C was introduced into the act to reduce the rigour of the law in the matters of re-conveyance under these amendment, the power was granted to the Bengaluru Development Authority based on resolution to re-convey the lands in favour of any person in either form in the which belongs to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of development scheme and on the Cont'd..
- 11 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
ground that it is not practicable to include such sites for the purpose of development scheme, the authority may allot such sites by way of sale or lease in favour of such a person subject to certain limitations set fourth therein.
8. Subsequent to this amendment, WP No.8606/1986 was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein, it is held that "the petitioners if fulfilled the condition provided under Section 38-C of the Act, the respondents are bound to make re-conveyance. In that view of the matter it is appropriate to direct the respondents (BAD) to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners for the re-conveyance of the land within a reasonable time, but not later than three months from the date of this order" vide its order dated:18.9.1994. Subsequent, to this order, Smt. Leela D/o. K.K.Nanjappa @ Leela Keshav Murth had not approached the BDA for more than a decade. Further it is contended that, in a month of March 2011, the plaintiff No.2 made a representation to the BDA to allot an alternative land and it was discussed in the meeting Cont'd..
- 12 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
on 29.03.2011, as it evident from proceedings note of BDA and order sheet. It is alleged that, the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8606/1986 was misinterpreted in the way that the Hon'ble High Court has directed the BDA to re-allot the alternative land to Smt. Leela D/o. K.K.Nanjappa @ Leela Keshav Murtha. Further it is contended that, all the other related proceedings and legal opinion are questionable and it is duty of the defendant being a responsible media for this state of society, to bring out the truth and reval true picture. Therefore, it is contended that, the legal opinion obtained by Dr.Justice A.R.Lakshman, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Former Chairman, Law Commission of India etc., does not hold water, because the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8606/1986 is being deliberately misinterpreted by BDA in the resurrecting this issue of re-allotment claim application filed by the plaintiff No.2 company. It is also contended that, all these are happened after exit of the original partners from the partnership firm and induction of new partners including plaintiff No.1. Therefore, it is Cont'd..
- 13 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
alleged that the plaintiff No.1 by using his political power and influence managed to grab the valuable property. Therefore, the defendant being a responsible media having right to speak truth to bring these facts before the society. The intended documentary which the defendant prepared to telecast is based on documentary evidence, therefore, the defendant sought to dismiss the suit with cost.
9. On the premise of above pleadings, my predecessor in office had framed the following Issues -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have telecasted defamatory statements against them with the malafide intention of defaming them?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that on account of defamatory news telecasted by the defendants they suffered irreparable loss to the reputation?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the statement made by them Cont'd..
- 14 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
against the plaintiffs are in good faith and without any ill-will?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as sought for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for? What order or decree?
10. On behalf of plaintiffs, B.H Satish, one of the partner in plaintiff No.2 has given evidence as PW.1 and filed affidavit by reiterating the plaint averments and Ex.P.1 to P.7 documents were marked in his evidence. On behalf of the defendants, the Managing Director of defendant company got examined as DW.1 and he has filed his affidavit by reiterating the written statement averments and got exhibited voluminous documents as Ex.D.6 to 18. Ex.D.1 to 5 were marked on behalf of defendants by confronting it to PW.1.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and defendants in support of their rival contentions.
12. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
Cont'd..
- 15 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
ISSUE No.1 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the Affirmative;
POINT No.5 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
13. ISSUES No.1 to 4: For the sake of coherence and efficiency, all points are consolidated for simultaneous discussion, thus minimizing redundancy in presentation.
14. In a suit for bare injunction to restrain media entities, television channels, print media, or any individual from broadcasting news, videos, documentaries, or snippets on television channels or social media, the onus rests on the plaintiff to establish that the news proposed for publication by the defendant is of a nature likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation and is formulated with false allegations. The defendant asserts that the first plaintiff, as a partner in the second plaintiff, unlawfully Cont'd..
- 16 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
acquired alternative land through political influence from the authority, in respect of land which had originally been acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority decades ago. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have allegedly received substantial compensation from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for the same land, which was acquired by KIADB for the development of Bengaluru Metro II Phase. The defendant claims that their intention is to expose the purported illegality by broadcasting a documentary on their channel, relying on documents obtained from the BDA.
15. Contrarily, the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs No.1 is a member of Legislative Assembly from Sira Constituency elected from BJP, is the target of a defamatory campaign orchestrated by the defendant. It is argued that the defendant, with ulterior motives, broadcasted bulletins and snippets on their Television channel containing baseless and defamatory content aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the first plaintiff.
Cont'd..
- 17 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
16. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their case, got examined one of the partner in 2nd plaintiff firm, Sri. B.H.Satish as PW.1. In lieu of chief examination, he has filed affidavit by reiterating the plaint averments. In addition to that, the plaintiff has produced few documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.7. Ex.P.1 is the certificate of Election issued by the returning officer of the election, Ex.P.2 is the registration certificate of partnership firm, Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6682/2016 (BDA-PIL), Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of memorandum of writ petition, Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of sale deed executed by the BDA in favour of 2nd plaintiff, Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of letter issued by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau and Ex.P.7 are the photographs of the screen shots of news headlines published in the defendant television channel.
17. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that the plaintiff No.1 holds equal authority over the estate and affairs of the second plaintiff. It was further established Cont'd..
- 18 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
that plaintiff No.1, a radiologist by profession, is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Sira Constituency, which are undisputed facts. Additionally, PW.1 acknowledged that the second plaintiff was registered in 1976, with original partners being G.K. Srinivas, Smt. K.N. Shanta, and Smt. Leela and in the year 2003 plaintiff No.1 was inducted as partner in the second plaintiff firm. PW.1 pleaded ignorance regarding the original object and purpose of the partnership firm at the time of its registration in 1975. He acknowledged that, despite the induction of new partners, they did not execute a new Partnership Deed. Additionally, he admitted that, according to Ex.P.1, the documented evidence, the primary objective of the partnership firm was to engage in land development, construction, and other related activities. PW.1 asserted a lack of knowledge about the nature of the partnership firm's activities before their induction as partners. Further, he pleaded ignorance regarding the capital invested by the first plaintiff and one Kiran as their share in the 2 nd plaintiff firm at the time of joining as a partners. He denied suggestions put by the defendant's counsel that, Cont'd..
- 19 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
Ex.P.1 to P.3 are fabricated documents. It is elicited
that on 29.3.2011, on behalf of the second plaintiff and in their capacity as partners, an application was submitted to the Bengaluru Development Authority seeking alternative lands in lieu of the acquired land in Sy.No.174 and 175 of Kethamaranahalli Village and a segment of Sy.No.59 of Yeshwanthapura Village. Subsequently, as per Ex.P.5, the BDA granted land to the second plaintiff free of cost.
18. PW.1 has denied the suggestion made by the defendant's counsel that they secured an illegal order from the Bengaluru Development Authority by misrepresenting court orders through political power and influence. He pleaded ignorance regarding other suggestions by the defendant's counsel about the legal opinions sought by the BDA prior to allotting lands to plaintiff No.2. PW.1 confirmed that the BDA had previously allotted 7000 sq.ft of land at HBR and HSB Layout free of cost. Subsequently, 2 acres of land in Sy.No.94 of Arakere Village were allotted; however, this allocation was annulled due to resistance from villagers, Cont'd..
- 20 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
leading to a legal challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Acknowledging that the BDA had made allotments at three different locations, PW.1 contended that possession of the properties had not been transferred. Notably, he did not refute the suggestion put forth by the defendant's counsel regarding the receipt of Rs.27 Crore as compensation from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board in connection to the allotted property situated at Hebbal.
19. The defendant, in order to prove that the intended proclamation and news was based on documents and true facts, got examined its Managing Director as DW.1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the written statement averments. In addition to that, the defendant got marked 4 documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.4 through confrontation and by DW.1, Ex.D.1 to D.18 documents were marked. Ex.D.1 to D.3 are Deed of Reconstitutions, Ex.D.4 is the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8606/1986 dated:1986, Ex.D.5 is the certified Cont'd..
- 21 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
copy of petition in W.P.No.6682/2016, Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of Deed of Partnership, Ex.D.7 is the application submitted to the Public Information Officer, BDA, Bengaluru City, Ex.D.8 and 9 are the endorsement issued by the Deputy Secretary, BDA, Bengaluru, Ex.D.10 is the remittance challen, Ex.D.11 is the application submitted under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the BDA, Ex.P.12 and P.13 are the documents applied for BDA, Ex.P.14 is the certified copy of order sheet in LAC No.83/1987, Ex.D.15 is the receipt for deposit made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Principle City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
20. In the course of an extensive cross-examination, the learned counsel for the plaintiff endeavored to elicite about the criminal cases registered against the defendant with K.P. Agrahara Police Station, particularly related to allegations of document fabrication. DW-1 acknowledged about the pending cases against him and admitted that Poorvanka Builders had filed a complaint against the defendant's associates. DW-1 conceded that, in the context of Cont'd..
- 22 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
documents obtained by the Bengaluru Development Authorit under the Right to Information Act, they did not seek legal opinions from experts. Instead, he testified that at the first instance, the informer provided documents, based on which they obtained certified copies from the authorities.
21. DW.1 has admitted that, the BDA has acquired 2 acres and odd land in Sy.No.173 which belongs to the 2nd plaintiff. He has admitted that, the partners have not lodged any complaint regarding induction of plaintiff No.1 and another one named Satish as partners. DW-1 admitted that W.P.No.8606/1986 was filed by one of the partners of the second plaintiff, challenging the Acquisition Proceedings. He also affirmed that he had not come across any documents indicating the renunciation of the second plaintiff's right to claim re- allotment of land. Further Furthermore, he admitted that in Ex.D.13, at page No.384, a letter dated July 26, 1985, from the Special Deputy Commissioner states that the process of re-granting the land would be Cont'd..
- 23 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
initiated only after the completion of the Acquisition Proceedings and the determination of compensation.
22. Further, DW-1 concedes that, at the time of notification, the title to the land in Sy.No.172 and 175 was vested in Shanta Industries. He asserts a lack of awareness about the public auction conducted in I.C- 1/1967 pertaining to blocks No.1 to 2 of the property, since the winding up of Mahalakshmi Woolens and Silk Mills Company Limited, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 10.9.1965. He has admitted that, the BDA before re-allotting the land to the plaintiffs had obtained legal opinion from the Formal Supreme Court Judge and other legal experts. Further, he has admitted that, at the time of telecasting the promo, as per Ex.P.7, they have not disclosed about the legal opinion obtained by the BDA before allotting alternative land.
23. On the basis of above evidence, the learned counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that, he Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P.No.6682/2016, unequivocally determined that the Bangalore Cont'd..
- 24 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
Development Authority (BDA) did not transgress any legal boundaries in instigating proceedings and subsequently re-allotting the land to the plaintiffs as an alternative to the originally acquired property. Additionally, it is contended that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), upon conducting an inquiry initiated by a complaint lodged by one Kodandarama, concluded its investigation without discovering any substantive merit in the complaint. The investigating officer, upon completing the inquiry, filed a 'B' report, explicitly referencing the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforementioned writ petition. The learned counsel has advanced the argument that once a matter has been adjudicated by the Constitutional Court, on same issue, media channels are precluded from orchestrating a trial based on unfounded allegations. It is posited that, with a palpable ulterior motive, the defendants, in an attempt to besmirch the reputation of plaintiff No.1, contrived documentation with the deliberate intent of broadcasting it on their news channel. The program, as asserted, was purportedly sponsored by a rival political Cont'd..
- 25 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
party, adding a dimension of potential malice to the impugned actions. The learned counsel has contended that, the defendant in their actions, has seemingly forgotten the fundamental duties and responsibilities inherent in journalism. It is asserted that the media bears the obligation to present both versions or perspectives of an event to the public. However, the defendant, contrary to this principle, has demonstrated an inclination to broadcast the impugned documentation while deliberately suppressing pertinent court proceedings and orders issued by various courts. Furthermore, the counsel emphasizes the omission of crucial information such as the opinions obtained by the Bangalore Development Authority from legal luminaries about the acquisition and subsequent re- grant of the land to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff counsel sought to decree the suit.
24. The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments-
1) Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Co-
Cont'd..
- 26 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
operative Housing Society and Others reported in 2018 (8) SCC 2015.
2) A.K. Subbaiah vs. B.N.Garudachar reported in ILR 1987 KAR 100)
3) Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian Express Ltd and Others reported in I.A No.723/2014 in C.S (OS) No.102/2014 -
Delhi High Court)
25. The learned counsel for defendant has vehemently argued that, the plaintiffs in an act characterized by deception, submitted an application to the Bangalore Development Authority under the guise of a defunct company. It is further alleged that the plaintiff no.1 strategically assumed a partnership role within this inactive entity with the surreptitious aim of engaging in fraudulent activities, leveraging both political influence and machinations to illicitly amass financial gains. The substantial compensation allegedly obtained through illegitimate means is asserted to have been utilized for the purpose of enticing voters of his constituency in the bye-election. Additionally, it is asserted by the defense counsel that the plaintiff's apprehension regarding the Cont'd..
- 27 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
defendant's intent to broadcast adverse news is
unfounded, as in the promo in question it did not mention the name of plaintiff No.1. Moreover, the defense contends that Ex.P.2, is a fabricated document and the acquisition was done in the year 1975, but the BDA has re-allotted the alternative land as per provision which incorporated in the BDA Act in the year 1994 which is illegal. Further it is contended that, after induction of plaintiff as a partner in the 2 nd plaintiff, procedural norms were allegedly sidestepped, allowing a modification in the business's nature and same was orchestrated to facilitate plaintiff No.1 in unscrupulous financial endeavors. Further it is contended that, as per Ex.D.6, the BDA has taken an initiative to re-allot the alternative land in the year 2011 in respect of land acquired in the year 1975 in LAC No.83/1967 and other owners in Sy.No.174 and 175 had received compensation and they have not challenged the Acquisition Proceedings and the Award passed by the referral Court.
26. The counsel representing the defendant has argued that the Bangalore Development Authority is not authorized Cont'd..
- 28 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
to allocate land in acres; rather, its mandate is limited to allotting sites to individuals who have lost their property due to Acquisition Proceedings. Furthermore, it is contended, as it evident in Ex.D.4, the order issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8606/1986 dated 01.9.1994 directed the petitioner to submit representations to the authorities within three months. However, the plaintiffs failed to adhere to this timeline and did not file any such application within the stipulated period. Contrarily, as per Ex.P.12, the application seeking alternative land was submitted to the BDA on 29.3.2011, subsequent to the induction of plaintiff No.1 as a partner in the company.
27. Further it is contended that, the proceedings notes explicitly state that the initiative to allot alternative land was taken in accordance with the directive issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Notably, the opinion provided by Justice S.A. Nazir, the then senior panel Advocate in the Bengaluru Development Authority, stands in contradiction to the viewpoint expressed by Cont'd..
- 29 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
the BDA's law officer. Further, it is argued that the BDA, with a purported ulterior motive to unlawfully re- allot the land to the plaintiffs, sought additional opinions from senior counsels K.M. Nataraj and Dr. Justice C.R. Lakshman. It is alleged that in these opinions, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforementioned writ petition was intentionally misconstrued. The learned counsel has contended that, it is the responsibility of conscientious journalists to expose any illegality and fraudulent activities perpetrated by bureaucrats, authorities, and elected members. Emphasizing the freedom of speech and expression, it is contended that the rights of the defendant are safeguarded under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed or restricted by an injunction order.
28. In reply, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the re-conveyance of the land did not transpire under Section 38(e) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act. It has been acknowledged that there exists no any provision in the Bangalore Development Cont'd..
- 30 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
Authority Act for the re-allotment of land as an alternative to the acquired property. Further, it is contended that, considering the pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6682/2016, this court is precluded from reassessing the findings of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned writ petition exercising civil court jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has posited that, while the right to freedom of the press is undoubtedly a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, such a right should not be wielded to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff through the dissemination of false allegations. It is contended that, of-course one can stretch his umbrella as much as he can do, but not to the extent to touch the nose of other man. Therefore, sought to reject the contention of the defendants.
29. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the entire evidence adduced by the rival parties in support of their claims and defence. It is acknowledged that, indisputably, at the Cont'd..
- 31 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
time the promotional content was broadcasted on the defendant's television channel, plaintiff No.1 held the position of an elected member of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. It is pertinent to note that, beyond this fact, there exists no contention challenging the high standing and reputation of plaintiff No.1 within society. Notably, plaintiff No.1 is the son of a former Member of Parliament and holds qualifications as a radiologist. The plaintiff has produced screenshots of the promotional content aired by the defendant's TV channel, wherein inquiries are raised regarding the compensation received by the son of a former Member of Parliament. The depiction in the content suggests fraudulent activities perpetrated against the court, Bangalore Development Authority, and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited by the youth legislator, further characterizing the situation as a potentially explosive scandal unfolding during a byelection. Notably, the defendants have not refuted their intention to broadcast a news documentary pertaining to plaintiff No.1. Instead, the defense contends that the documentary is grounded in material obtained from the BDA under the Cont'd..
- 32 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
Right to Information Act, asserting that it is based on factual accuracy and therefore should not be deemed defamatory.
30. The documents produced by the plaintiffs in their evidence, particularly the Registration Form of the Partnership Firm of the second plaintiff, marked as Ex.P.2, reveal that the partnership firm was registered on 12.4.1975. The plaintiff No.1 was inducted as a partner on 30.4.2010, a fact uncontested by any party affiliated with the partnership firm. An undisputed factual element is that the properties situated in Sy.No.174 and 175 of Kethmaranahalli village and Sy.No.59 of Yeshwanthapura village, acquired by the second plaintiff through a public auction, were subsequently subjected to acquisition by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bengaluru, as per the preliminary notification dated 15.7.1977. Importantly, neither plaintiff No.2 nor its partners received any compensation from the Bangalore Development Authority or City Improvement Trust Board for the acquired land. Instead, one of the partners sought Cont'd..
- 33 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
recourse through a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, urging the BDA to allocate alternative land. The Hon'ble High Court, in W.P.No.8606/1986, directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the BDA within a specified period. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this directive. Contrary to the High Court's directive, as evident from the Proceedings Note of the BDA, on 29.3.2011, the second plaintiff submitted an application to the BDA requesting the allotment of alternative land. Subsequently, the BDA initiated proceedings and sought legal opinions from experts based on this application. The said proceeding and the allocation of alternative land was challenged in W.P.No.6682/2016 (BDA-PAL) by one K. Nagaraj before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which was ultimately dismissed on 22.2.2016. The Hon'ble High Court, in its order has observed that the allotment of alternative land to the second plaintiff by the Bangalore Development Authority was a measure taken to address a previously committed illegality. The court held that this action was not intended to cause inconvenience to the residents of Cont'd..
- 34 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
the layout, and there was no evidence to suggest ulterior motives or any illegality in the proceedings.
31. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that, prior to commencing the process of allotting alternative land, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority prudently sought legal openion from legal experts. Notably, opinions were obtained from Dr. Justice C.R. Lakshman, a former Supreme Court Judge, and Justice S.A. Nazir, who held the position of the panel Advocate at that time. Furthermore, the insights of Senior Advocate K.M. Nataraj were sought, specifically concerning the legality and potential consequences associated with the acceptance of the application submitted by plaintiff No.2. As it evident from the records, all of them have opined that it would be open to BDA to allot other alternative lands in lieu of cash compensation, commensurate to the value of the land that have already been acquired by the plaintiffs herein allegedly without following procedure of law. In the opinion given by Dr. Justice A.R.Lakshman, he has Cont'd..
- 35 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
specifically opined that the Acquisition Proceeding in question was not in-accordance with law.
32. As discussed supra, when the Constitutional Court unequivocally determined that there were no irregularities or procedural lapses in the Bangalore Development Authority's (BDA) action of re-allotting alternative lands to the plaintiffs, it is my considered opinion that the media's pursuit of a trial, intending to challenge or undermine the decision or observations binding on all as made by the Constitutional Court, is impermissible. The headlines prominently featured in the news channel's promotional content, specifically stating "fraud committed against the court, BDA, and BMRCL by young legislator," may be perceived as a form of interference in the justice delivery system. Allowing such news to be disseminated to the public without following the established procedure of challenging such orders before the appropriate forum has the potential to result in a state of anarchy.
33. The learned counsel for defendant has vehemently contended that, rights of the defendant are shielded Cont'd..
- 36 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The contention put forth is that it is the duty of the media to present the true facts before the public, especially when there is an alleged illegality committed by elected members and bureaucrats with the intent of encroaching upon valuable government land. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Ho'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun J. Tejpal and Another V/s Jayalakshmi and Another, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as below;
"17. No doubt Media plays a very vital role in present times. "Media has come to be known as the eyes, and the ears of the people. Over the years, it has also become their brain and tongue." ('A Brief Note on Media and Judicial Independence' by Justice P.B Sawant, former Judge, Supreme Court of India) Freedom of the Media is an integral part of freedom of expression and essential requisite of democratic set up. The Media is known as the fourth limb of a democratic system. Without function to expose the corruption by public servants etc. The petitioner was the first who Cont'd..
- 37 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
adopted novel method now popularly known as "Sting Operations". It is not for me to discuss the morality or otherwise of such operations, which subject is hotly debated. Suffice is to state that Media runs the risk if it publishes the stories, without proper investigation or where truth is distorted, which level allegations against other persons and allegations are recklessly made. If it is their right, as a part of freedom of speech to expose the corruption of public officials in public life, it is also their duty to ensure that the news is based on proper investigation and verification and the publication is not aimed at what is known as "Sensational Journalism". However, even if what is said is truth and bona fide, still threat of facing such defamatory action is always there. It is occupational hazard, when such actions are brought against the author (s). The law is such that all these issues are to be examined at the stage of evidence."commenting as to whether it is right or wrong, the journalists deem it that it is integral part of their function to expose the corruption by public servants etc. The petitioner was the first who adopted novel method now popularly known as Cont'd..
- 38 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
"Sting Operations". It is not for me to discuss the morality or otherwise of such operations, which subject is hotly debated. Suffice is to state that Media runs the risk if it publishes the stories, without proper investigation or where truth is distorted, which level allegations against other persons and allegations are recklessly made. If it is their right, as a part of freedom of speech to expose the corruption of public officials in public life, it is also their duty to ensure that the news is based on proper investigation and verification and the publication is not aimed at what is known as "Sensational Journalism". However, even if what is said is truth and bona fide, still threat of facing such defamatory action is always there. It is occupational hazard, when such actions are brought against the author (s). The law is such that all these issues are to be examined at the stage of evidence."
34. Of-course, it is widely acknowledged that the media serves as the eyes and ears of the people, and the utilization of sting operations to uncover the truth is deemed permissible. This form of journalism, often Cont'd..
- 39 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
referred to as sensational journalism, is subject to the condition that such sting operations should be founded on accurate facts or allegations. Importantly, these operations should be conducted without any malicious intent to defame the individuals involved. The primary objective should be to reveal the truth, especially in matters related to corruption. The learned counsel for plaintiff, in order to counter the submission of defendants, placing reliance of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of A.K.Subbaiah Vs. B.N.Garudachar reported in ILR 1987 KAR page 100 has contended that, under the guise of exposing corrupt practice, one cannot be permitted to make a statement of defamatory in excusable in anticipation of plea of justification or truth. In such circumstances, civil court can grant injunction by restraining such person from spreading such news. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in above decision has considered the ambit of Article 19(a) of Constitution of India and held thus;
"11. Article 19(2) relied on by the learned Counsel Shri Ravivarma Kumar does not in any way help him. But, on the other hand, it goes to Cont'd..
- 40 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
show that the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19 is controlled by reasonable restrictions and limitations and by a collateral duty which one owes to another. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India reads as:--
"Nothing in sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court defamation or incitement to an offence."
So long as the speech made by a person is not defamatory and does not amount an incitement to commit an offence and so long as it does not violate Cont'd..
- 41 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
the limits of decency or morality, one would be justified in claiming freedom of speech and expression. When once the speech or statement made by a person amounts to violation of decency or morality or becomes defamatory etc., his right to freedom of speech and expression would be naturally controlled by corresponding duty he owes to another. Therefore Article 19(2) puts a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. Nobody has got a right to make a defamatory statement regarding another merely on the ground that the law provides truth or justification as a defence. The plea of justification would come into picture only after speech is made but not before. The reputation is most valuable to any person. It is much more valuable than any amount of money or anything else in the world. Therefore merely because defendant-5 wants to plead truth or justification, it does not mean that he has got an unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore the argument of the learned Counsel Shri Ravivarma Kumar that his Cont'd..
- 42 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
client has got an unfettered freedom of speech and expression, only merits to be rejected."
35. In the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian Express Ltd and Others, reported in 2014 SCC Online Del 210, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi examined the right of the media under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly in a context where the petitioner, a former Supreme Court judge, faced allegations of sexual harassment that were repeatedly published by the defendants. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering the background of the episode, held as below;
"32. It is correct that freedom of expression in press and media is the part of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India where by all the citizens have a right to express their view. However, the said right of the expression is also not absolute but is subjected to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the Parliament or State in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, Cont'd..
- 43 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The said position is clear from the plain reading of the Article 19(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India."
36. The learned counsel for defendant by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Thappar Vs. State of Madras reported in 1950 SCC 436 has contended that, the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. Therefore, it is contended that, the Civil Court cannot restrain the right of the media by order of injunction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has observed that-
"5. Turning now to the merits, there can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation, "Liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of Cont'd..
- 44 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
publication. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be of little value. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that the order of the Government of Madras would be a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), unless Section 9(1-A) of the impunged Act under which it was made is saved by the reservations mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19 which (omitting immaterial words regarding laws relating to libel, slander, etc., with which we are not concerned in this case) saves the operation of any "existing law insofar as it relates to any matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the state". The question according arises whether the impugned Act, insofar as it the purpose of securing the public safety or the maintenance of public order, to prohibit or regulate the entry into or the circulation, sale or distribution in the province of Madras or any part thereof of any document or class of documents is a "law relating to any matter Cont'd..
- 45 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
which undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the State".
37. The firmly established legal doctrine affirming the media's right to disseminate and publish news stands unchallenged. It is crucial to emphasize the nuanced circumstances surrounding the aforementioned case. In that particular case, the petitioner contested the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, wherein the state, in pursuit of public safety and the preservation of public order, imposed restrictions on the media's publication of articles. Consequently, the legal principle articulated in that particular decision may not be seamlessly applied to encroach upon the rights of individuals in varying legal contexts. I am of the considered opinion that the entitlement conferred under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India ought not to be construed as an unbridled fundamental right. Although individuals possess the right to exercise their freedoms, it is incumbent upon them to acknowledge the inherent limitations within these constitutional liberties. The famous quote "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just Cont'd..
- 46 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
where my nose begins" encapsulates the concept that individual freedoms have limits and should not infringe upon the rights or well-being of others. It underscores the idea that while people have the right to exercise their liberties, these rights should be exercised responsibly and without causing harm to others.
38. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that, the documents obtained under Right to Information Act, is admissible in evidence and without any legal reason, such documents cannot be rejected. The defendant counsel has vehemently argued that, it is the right of the citizen to get information and in democracy, though there is a decision of court which according to the defendants obtained by misrepresenting earlier order, every person have right to hold the opinion without interference. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for defendant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294, wherein, it has held that;
Cont'd..
- 47 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
"The right to get information in democracy is recognised all throughout and it is natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which is as under:-
"(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."
39. Absolutely there is no doubt,it is the fundamental right of a citizen, as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, to express their opinions, encompassing the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas from all sources, subject to lawful restrictions. Reputation holds paramount significance for an individual, often surpassing monetary value or any other worldly possession. As previously stated, plaintiff No.1, being a qualified medical Cont'd..
- 48 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
practitioner, a youthful member of the Legislative Assembly, and the offspring of a former Member of Parliament, unquestionably commands a high standing in society. In light of the Constitutional Court's determination that there was no illegality in the process of allotting alternative land, I am of the opinion that broadcasting a documentary on such a re- allotment process, particularly when based on expert legal opinions, is impermissible, especially given its potentially defamatory nature. As it appears from Ex.P.7 photographs of the screen shots of the T.V. Channel of the defendant, the headlines in question possess the potential to defame the individual involved. Such damaging statements could significantly impact the future prospects of a person engaged in public life, especially a politician. Additionally, there is a discernible likelihood that these headlines could influence the opinions of voters in the constituency.
40. In my humble view, responsible journalism is anchored in the unwavering commitment of journalists to report information with meticulous accuracy and truthfulness, ensuring a thorough verification of facts before publication. Upholding the principles of fairness and Cont'd..
- 49 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
objectivity, journalists strive to present news devoid of personal bias or prejudice. This responsibility is coupled with an exhibition of sensitivity and respect for the potential impact on individuals and communities, treating subjects with the utmost dignity. Central to this ethos is a paramount sense of accountability, compelling journalists to promptly rectify errors and maintain receptivity to feedback and criticism.
41. In the instant case, considering the adjudication by the Constitutional Court affirming the legality of the land re-allotment to plaintiff No.2 by the BDA, coupled with scrutiny by the investigating agency, it is my considered opinion that the plaintiff has made out prima facie grounds to restrain the defendants by permanent injunction from telecasting the news in a defamatory nature. Therefore, I constrained to answer Issues No.1, 2 and 4 in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in the Negative.
42. ISSUE No. 5 : For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I proceed to pass the following -
Cont'd..
- 50 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost.
The defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, henchmen or anybody claiming through or under them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from transmitting any video, documentary, snippets, breaking news, news special, news scroll, paid promotions etc., through television channel, print media, social media or any direct or indirect method against the plaintiffs in respect of subject matter of the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on open court, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2024.) (HARESHA. A) XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : B.H. Satish 04-04-2022
Cont'd..
- 51 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Certificate of Election. Ex.P.2 : Form Register. Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Order in
W.P.No.6682/2016 dated:22.2.2016.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Memorandum of Writ Petition in W.P.No.6682/2016.
Ex.P.5 : Sale Deed dated:29.1.2016.
Ex.P.6 : Letter dated: 27.5.2017 from Anti Corruption Bureau.
Ex.P.7 : Photographs.
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Examined on:
D.W.1 : M. Jayaram 27-09-2021
4.DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS Exs.D.1 : Certified copies of the Deed of to D.3 Reconstitution.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of order in
W.P.No.8606/1986.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Writ Petition in
W.P.No.6682/2016.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of Deed of Partnership
dated:4.6.1975.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of application for
seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Exs.D.8 : Certified copies of endorsement to D.9 issued by Deputy Secretary, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 52 O.S. No.6906/2021
-
Ex.D.10 : Remittance Challen.
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of application
submitted to Right of Information
Act, 2005.
Exs.D.12 : Certified copies of documents applied
and D.13 for BDA.
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of order sheet in LAC
No.83/1987.
Ex.D.15 : Receipt for deposit made by the Land
Acquisition Officer.
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..