Press Cannot Become “Judge, Jury And Executioner”: Karnataka High Court Pulls Up Media Trial In Darshan Case

The Karnataka High Court has strongly criticised media houses for conducting parallel trials during criminal proceedings, observing that the freedom of the press cannot extend to influencing the course of justice. The Court remarked that although the media functions as a watchdog in a democracy, it cannot assume the role of “judge, jury and executioner” by creating prejudicial narratives against an accused person before the conclusion of trial.

The observations came while hearing a writ petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who alleged that several television channels and digital platforms were aggressively covering an ongoing murder investigation involving him. He argued that repeated broadcasts of speculative claims, leaked investigation materials and sensational discussions had created a hostile atmosphere that threatened his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that civil courts as well as the High Court had already passed restraining orders against publication of confidential charge-sheet material. Despite this, some media outlets allegedly continued airing detailed discussions and recreated courtroom-like proceedings on television. The Bench expressed concern that such conduct could erode adjudicatory neutrality and interfere with the administration of justice.

While examining the issue, the Court referred to the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Information Technology framework regulating digital content. It observed that the Programme Code prohibits defamatory or misleading broadcasts and empowers authorities to take action against violators. The Court further held that the authorities had a statutory duty to examine complaints relating to Programme Code violations and could not remain passive spectators.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the authorities to examine the broadcasts and digital content complained of by the petitioner and initiate action wherever violations were found. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate separate contempt proceedings against media organisations if required.