IMPORTANT POINT
The right to broadcast is not absolute and is subject to regulatory compliance, particularly regarding licensing and adherence to statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, C.J.

1. These two appeals arise from two different, but verbatim same, orders dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. The first mentioned Writ Appeal No. 949 of 2024 is referable to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 10639 of 2024, whereas the other writ appeal pertains to the order in Writ Petition No. 10553 of 2024.

2. The appeals are by two appellants, named M/s. Power Smart Media Private Limited and M/s. Mitcon Infra Project Private Limited respectively, who are the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petitions.

2.1 Since the facts in both the cases run parallel and the issues are identical, both the appeals were heard together to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2.2 Both the appeals impugn two orders of even date passed by learned Single Judge in the petitions concerned, which are the interim orders passed pending the final adjudication of the petitions.

2.3 It appears that respondent No. 2 in the writ petition-Power TV has been facing certain allegations and the consequential notices for alleged violations of applicable legal provisions. During the pendency of the proceedings of the petitions, when show-cause- notice dated 09.02.2024 was produced before the Court, in light of that development, learned Single Judge passed the interim orders, which are now subject-matter of consideration in the present appeals.

2.4 The operative portion of the order in paragraph 7 is extracted herein:

“Under these circumstances, in the light of the undisputed fact that the proceedings have been initiated by the Union of India pursuant to the final show-cause notice dated 09.02.2024, it would be just and appropriate to direct respondent No. 3/respondent No. 5 and other private respondents not to continue with any broadcast and restrain all the private respondents from carrying on any broadcast activity till the next date of hearing.

Re-list this matter on 09.07.2024.”

2.5 The aforesaid order directing respondent-Power TV not to continue with any telecast and broadcast and further restraining the private respondents from carrying on the telecast activity till the next date of hearing came to be passed by learned Single Judge upon noticing and observing certain aspects figured in course of consideration of the controversy.

3. It would be necessary to notice the basic facts operating in the background. The first Writ Petition No. 10639 of 2024 came to be filed by the petitioner who is stated to be in police service serving in IPS cadre, whereas the petitioner in the other petition from which Writ Appeal No. 951 of 2024 arises happens to be a Member of Legislative Council. Both felt aggrieved by the Power Channel broadcast and telecast of allegedly defamatory programmes and filed the writ petitions.

3.1 Drawing the facts from the first petition relatable to Writ Appeal No. 949 of 2024, it is the case of the petitioner that the two appellants herein are the owners and run TV Channel in the name of Power TV. It is the allegation that it is appellant No. 2-M/s. Mitcon Infra Project Private Limited though claims to be having the authorization to run the Channel, the Channel is run by appellant No. 1-M/s. Power Smart Media Private Limited. It was pleaded in the petition that on 08.09.2023, the respondent-Power TV released a broadcast and certain promos, which according to the petitioner, were defamatory, derogative and malicious, lowering the reputation of the petitioners and that the story broadcasted in the promotional programmes was a concocted story. Be that as it may.

3.1.1 It was further stated that in that view the petitioner had to institute civil suit being Original Suit No. 1602 of 2023 in the competent civil court at Bengaluru Rural District. In the said defamation suit, injunction was granted against the respondent-TV Channel restraining it from telecasting or publishing any defamatory news about the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the inj