Karnataka HC drops criminal contempt charges against Deccan Herald and local TV channels, imposes total costs of Rs 73 lakh

The Karnataka High Court today dropped criminal contempt charges initiated against Deccan Herald and other local channels for false reporting.

On December 16 last year, Deccan Herald had published an article titled "Rs 9 cr seized in raid on judge" alleging corruption in the judiciary. The report was later determined to be false.

While dropping the charges, the Bench of Chief Justice Abhay Sreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar imposed costs of Rs. 73 lakh on the accused publications.

While passing the order, the Court stated that the news report amounted to scandalizing the state judiciary, especially since the news was on the first page of the newspaper daily. The Court further took into account that the accused persons had declined to revealed their sources, who were stated to be highly placed officials.

“The collective campaign on the part of the accused persons will cause people to start looking at judges very suspiciously. Therefore the news item tends to lower the image of the Courts in the minds of litigants.”

The news item in question had alleged that notices were issued to 48 judicial officers in Karnataka after raids were conducted on their houses. Deccan Herald has since taken down the story and issued an unconditional apology on its website.

The Court further stated that though it is true that judges should not be hypersensitive in matters of contempt, the mere act of maintaining silence is not an option.

The Court further referred to the decision in the case In Re: S. Mulgaokar to hold that silence is surely not an option for the judges in such a matter.

The High Court further clarified that though the acts on the part of the accused persons clearly constitute criminal contempt, the Court would be taking a lenient approach in the matter.

It further noted the contents of the affidavit tendered by the publication, which proposed a revised training programme for all its legal correspondents. Deccan Herald further initiated disciplinary action against the legal correspondent who wrote the misleading article.

This prompted the Court to take a soft approach, with the Bench terming the same. as "majestic liberalism".

The Court therefore accepted the unconditional apology tendered by Deccan Herald and directed the publication to pay up an amount of Rs. 30 lakh as costs within eight weeks from the date on which a copy of the order becomes available.

Besides the above, the Court also dropped criminal contempt charges against the three TV channels i.e., BTV, TV5 and Digvijay, for publishing false news on the same issue.

In fact, BTV had taken one step ahead and showed a video clip of a person counting notes with an intention of getting confidence in the minds of people, the Court pointed out. The other channels had only published the news in form of scrolls without the video clipping, the Court noted.

In its order, the Court further stated that,

“All the persons involved in the display of scroll had tendered apology to the Court. Guidelines were also framed by the channels before broadcasting news. These guidelines were said to be fair by the Advocate General and he noted that his suggestions were also incorporated by the channels.”

However, the Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by all the channels and further directed BTV to pay up Rs. 20 lakh as costs. The other two channels were asked to pay Rs 15 lakh and 8 lakh respectively within eight weeks.

“This act of showing leniency and mercy should not be seen as a weakness”, the Court further clarified.

The Karnataka High Court concluded its order by stating,

“Let this be a lesson for all those making scandalous attacks on the Judiciary”.

Advocate General for Karnataka Prabhuling Navadgi had recently proposed guidelines for legal reporters and media persons in the wake of the matter.

The guidelines so proposed include that reporters must possess basic legal education, that the media follow a self-imposed ethical code, and that caution be exercised in reporting oral observations made in open Court.