The Bengaluru City Civil Court appears to have seriously erred in passing an ex parte interim order restraining the media from publishing any potentially defamatory material against six Karnataka ministers. Such injunction orders not only go against several judicial pronouncements in similar cases but have the effect of preventing the media from exposing the misdeeds of politicians by granting them blanket protection.
The public may well conclude that the six ministers -- K Sudhakar, Shivaram Hebbar, B C Patil, S T Somashekar, Narayana Gowda and Bhyrathi Basavaraj, – had sought the injunction orders because they have something to hide. All of them had changed parties and were instrumental in bringing down the previous Congress-JD(S) government and paving the way for the BJP to come to power in the state.
But for the courts to pass such restraining orders on the media based merely on the fears of politicians that they may be defamed in the future is uncalled for. Politicians who fear for their reputation must show in their conduct -- public and private -- that they are above reproach, not hide behind injunction orders.
This is not the first time that Karnataka politicians have sought the sanctuary of the court to gag the media, but in previous instances, they have been rebuffed, and rightly so. In 2019, a Bengaluru sessions judge dismissed a plea for an injunction order by BJP MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar against a digital news site, observing that restraining the media from publishing any information about public servants would amount to curtailing the right of the press to discharge its duties.
Similarly, the Karnataka High Court had set aside a restraint order obtained from a lower court by the then Bengaluru (South) BJP candidate Tejaswi Surya in an alleged harassment case. In another case, the Delhi High Court had cautioned against courts stifling news and debate through prior gag orders.
No doubt, the media, too, should act with utmost responsibility in doing its job, keeping in mind the Madras High Court observation that the media cannot publish anything and everything in the guise of public interest because all matters that may be of interest to the public are not necessarily matters of public interest. At the same time, people who hold public office must be ready for constant scrutiny of their conduct.
The Bengaluru court should have refused to grant injunction or, at the very least, issued notices to media houses seeking their response before granting an interim order. In a democracy, there can be no compromise on the people’s right to know, for otherwise politicians will become law unto themselves.