The Karnataka High Court criticised television channels and digital platforms for their coverage of the ongoing murder trial involving Kannada actor Darshan, observing that several reports and programmes prima facie amount to “calculated, media-driven adjudication” in violation of court injunctions. The court has directed the Union Government to take action on the actor’s complaint against the concerned media houses.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that video clippings placed before the court showed media outlets recreating courtroom proceedings—masking only the presiding judge’s face while openly displaying those of the accused and their counsel.
The judge called this a “disturbing trend”, noting that such broadcasts were aired on every date of hearing, thereby turning sub-judice proceedings into a public spectacle.
The court issued the directive while partly allowing a petition filed by Darshan, who is accused No. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case.
Darshan had sought directions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to act on his January 2026 complaint under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Cable Television Network Rules, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The petition alleged that despite the trial being at a nascent stage, television and digital platforms were conducting a media trial through speculative reports, selective leaks, and unverified claims, shaping public opinion and undermining a fair trial. It also pointed out that several media outlets continued broadcasting confidential charge sheet material despite interim injunctions passed by civil courts and the High Court.
Justice Magadum delivered a strong admonition of the media’s conduct. In a remark underscoring constitutional values, he stated, “Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value. However, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it. The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled.”
The court further observed that continued telecast of such material, despite subsisting injunctions, reflected blatant disregard for judicial authority and contributed to the creation of a “carnival atmosphere of justice”.
Such conduct, it said, amounted to fostering prejudicial pre-trial publicity, violating programme codes, and potentially inviting action under Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act and Rules.
Programmes that “border on trial by headlines,” especially when aired in wilful disobedience of court orders, could not be permitted in a system governed by the rule of law, the judge said.
The High Court directed the I&B Ministry and MeitY to examine Darshan’s complaint and initiate regulatory action within six weeks, including measures such as regulating, suspending, prohibiting, or ordering the discontinuance of telecast or streaming of the impugned content. The ministries were further asked to assess whether prohibiting broadcasts, suspending or revoking permissions or licences, or imposing penalties would be necessary under the applicable legal framework.
