Media broadcasts violating programme code and court orders impair fair trial, mandating statutory authorities to act and courts to intervene under Article 226.

CAV ORDER

1. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to register the complaint dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure A) and issue show cause notice to all the said Media Channels and take action in accordance with Cable Television Networks Act 1995, Cable Television Networks Rules, 1995 r/w Information Technology Act of 2000 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021;

B. Direct Respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings for suspension of broadcast licenses or imposition of penalties under Chapter III of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, against non-complaint entities inter terms of the Complaint dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure A) or/and refer the prima facie contempt to the appropriate contempt jurisdiction; and

C. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts, and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."

2. The petitioner, a Kannada film actor and producer, is aggrieved by a sustained and targeted media campaign in relation to Crime No.250/2024 registered on 09.06.2024 by Kamakshipalya Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, 1860.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, despite the trial being at a nascent stage, various television channels and digital platforms have indulged in media-driven adjudication, disseminating speculative narratives, selectively leaked materials, and unverified allegations, thereby engineering public perception and impairing the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.

4. The petitioner and his wife secured interim injunction orders from competent civil courts restraining publication of confidential material. Further, by order dated 10.09.2024, this Court restrained respondent Nos.3 to 40 from disseminating charge sheet material and directed respondent No.4 to take action in the event of violation of the Programme Code.

5. This Court therefore deems it fit to extract the ex parte order of injunction granted by the City Civil and Sessions Court in O.S.No.6082/2024 and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24836/2024 on 10.09.2024. The same read as under:

Order passed in O.S.No.6082/2024

"The defendants are hereby restrained by way of this exparte ad-interim TI order, from airing, printing, publishing any statement in relation to the investigation being under taken by Kamakshipalya Police against Sri. Darshan Srinivas who is arrayed as accused No.2 and from airing, printing, publishing any statement about the final report inter alia FSL reports, confessional statements and holding debate/discussion/interview on the final report pertaining to FIR No.0250/2024 pending adjudication before XXIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru."

Order passed in W.P.No.24836/2024

"ORDER

(i) Respondents 3 to 40 are hereby restrained from publishing, printing, airing and disseminating confidential information contained in the charge sheet in relation to Crime No.0250/2024 registered by the Kamakshipalya Police Station, till the next date of hearing.

(ii) Respondent No.1 to communicate this order to respondents 3 to 40.

Needless to state that respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against respondents 3 to 40, if they telecast, print, air or publish any statements in violation of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994."

6. Despite these judicial interdictions, it is alleged that the media continues to telecast content in violation of statutory provisions and binding court orders.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and lear