BENGALURU: Observing that one of the submissions of the New Delhi-based petitioner- Association of Democratic Reforms is right that the voters have a right to know all information about all contesting candidates, the Karnataka High Court on Friday said that the defendants (media) are not prevented from publishing or telecasting any news item which is not defamatory in their opinion.
However, the court said, in case plaintiff-- Bengaluru South Constituency BJP candidate L S Tejasvi Surya-- is aggrieved by any such publication or telecast, he may approach the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice L Narayana Swamy and Justice P S Dinesh Kumar made this observation while disposing of the public interest litigation petition filed by Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) questioning the 'gag order' dated March 29, 2019 passed by a city civil and sessions court.
The court also observed that the judge, by impugned order has restrained the defendants from making 'defamatory statement' against the plaintiff. What is 'defamatory' can be tested and decided only if an act of making a statement or telecasting a programme is challenged by the aggrieved person before an appropriate forum, it said.
After taking note of arguments of both the parties, the court said in the judgement that the advocate of the petitioner is right in his submission that voters have a right to know all information about all contesting candidates. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions gives 'freedom of speech and expression' to every citizen, it said.
The ADR, a non-party in the suit filed before the civil court, had moved the high court by filing PIL seeking directions to the ECI to enforce the norms and modality in respect of the publication of information and opinion about the contesting candidates that it has already laid down.
The petitioner counsel contended that the impugned order is in the form of a 'gag order' and obstructs disclosure of complete information about the contesting candidate which vitiates the process of free and fair election.
In counter, senior advocate, representing Surya, had argued that a businesswoman had deleted her tweet against Surya after the same started being misinterpreted by rival political parties. Responses to the said tweet prompted the plaintiff to file the suit, he said.