The Karnataka High Court stated that journalists, print media and electronic mediums cater to the public’s needs by publishing important articles and they have a social obligation to maintain peace.
Single judge benches are available. Justice V Srishananda Dharwad sitting said the publication of new items have wide implications for the society and that reports made in the print or electronic media should strictly adhere to the guidelines issued by Press Council of India. It continued,
“Using words like ‘Taliban’ or ‘Pundatike” is not acceptable and goes beyond the guidelines of the Press Council of India…The print and electronic media should report on news stories in a decent way.”
The bench also stated that electronic and print journalists form the 4th pillar in democracy. They should therefore act with great care and caution.
“Even today, many people believe the news article published in the paper as gospel truth. They do not even bother to verify or corroborate the information. The general public has placed a lot of trust in the media. Therefore, those who are in charge of print or electronic media should be very careful not to use unparliamentary words, nor defamatory ones, when reporting news items.” it further opined.
The Court has requested that the Editors/Chief Editorials of the electronic and print media give their best efforts to achieve the stated object.
The observations were made in the petitions of several news publications who were charged in 2012 under Sections 499 & 500 IPC.
After the Advocates’ Associations in various parts of the state decided not to defend journalists involved in criminal cases, controversy broke out. The issue was raised in the Legislative Assembly, where a Member referred to the resolution of the advocates’ associations as “Taliban Mentality”.
Print media reported the discussion using unparliamentary terms, such as calling the advocacy fraternity a whole a “Goonda Mentality”. Some newspapers referred to the resolution as “Taliban Mentality” by repeating what the MLA said. Davalsab Naddaf, an advocate, filed a complaint in private against the persons who published this news item.
In their anxiety, they may have used unparliamentary terms in their reports without intention. They have also expressed regret and offered an unconditional apology.
The bench read the affidavits submitted by the petitioners. It also reviewed the submissions of four petitioners who assured the Court that they would never repeat the same mistakes in the future.
The Court noted that, since the incident occurred in 2012 and the Petitioners have offered an unconditional apology, it is logical to conclude the criminal proceedings against them. It held.
“This Court takes note of the contents and assurances given by the petitioners to the Court. It hopes and trusts that in the future, the petitioners and all print and electronic media will be cautious in publishing news items and they will exercise the necessary restraint when preparing the news item/s to avoid harming the dignity of everyone concerned. They also hope to maintain a prudent attitude in reporting the news item/s.”
The court ruled that the criminal proceedings were quashed and the petitions granted.
Case Title: Lok Shikshan Trust & Others And Davalsab S/O Malliksab Nadaf
Case No. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Case No: CRIMINAL Petition No. 100540 OF 2020 CRIMINAL Petition NO. 100542 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 100543 of 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Date of Order: 24 07 2023
Appearance: Advocate K L Patil for petitioners
Attorney Sadiq N. Goodwala, for the respondent.
You can read/download the order by clicking here