High Court of Kerala Drops Criminal Contempt Proceedings After Media House Tenders Unconditional Apology - 2025-09-09

High Court of Kerala Drops Criminal Contempt Proceedings After Media House Tenders Unconditional Apology

The High Court of Kerala has officially closed contempt proceedings initiated against the directors of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited, the entity operating the web-based channel "Karma News." The bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, accepted an unconditional apology from the respondents, emphasizing the necessity of editorial responsibility in digital media.

Background of the Dispute

The contempt case originated from a suo motu action taken by the High Court following a broadcast on May 5, 2024. During a press conference aired by Karma News, P.C. Jose—the General Secretary of the Human Rights Association of International—made a series of derogatory remarks against the judiciary. Jose claimed to have established a "constitutional court" and purported to issue judicial sentences against a sitting judge. Furthermore, he labeled the courts as "bootlickers of the British" and alleged that judicial appointments were influenced by bribery and political pressure.

Legal Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

While the proceedings were initially aimed at P.C. Jose, the Court noted that his history of treatment at the Oolampara mental asylum warranted a different approach, resulting in his exclusion from the prosecution. Focus then shifted to the management of Karma News.

The Court impleaded the Managing Director and Director of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited after discovering through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs records that they were responsible for the company’s operations. The respondents argued that they were Australian residents who were not physically present to oversee the daily operations of the channel, which were managed by a CEO who has since been terminated. Despite these arguments, the respondents took full responsibility for the editorial failure of the channel.

Key Observations

The High Court underscored the critical balance between press freedom and the maintenance of judicial dignity. During the proceedings, the Court observed:

• "Media platforms cannot become conduits for vilifying the judiciary or undermining public confidence in the administration of justice."
• "Such reckless dissemination of derogatory and unverified assertions strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and cannot be countenanced."
• "Irrespective of the status and competence of the 1st respondent, the News Channel broadcasting his views should have exercised editorial discretion."

The Court’s Decision

The respondents appeared in person and filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, assuring the Court that preventive measures had been implemented to prevent future occurrences. Citing Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, the bench concluded that the apology was bona fide.

Consequently, the High Court accepted the apology, discharged the respondents, and officially closed the contempt case. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to digital media outlets regarding their legal and ethical obligations when broadcasting content that targets the judiciary and the integrity of the constitutional order.