BENGALURU: The material placed on record depicts a disturbing trend of broadcast media going to the extent of recreating courtroom proceedings with only the face of the presiding judge being masked, while the faces of the accused and counsel openly displayed.
Such programmes are telecast on every date of hearing, converting pending judicial proceedings into a form of public spectacle, said the Karnataka High Court, directing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to act on the complaint filed by actor Darshan Srinivas over ‘media trial’ against certain media houses for violating the injunction order and programme code in the Renukaswamy murder case.
The court held that the media reportage and telecast, prima facie, violate Rule 6 of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, apart from amounting to interference with the administration of justice and violation of subsisting judicial orders. It also held that interference under Article 226 is warranted, it said.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order recently, partly allowing the petition filed by Darshan seeking directions to conduct an inquiry and take action on his complaint dated January 16, 2026, alleging that various TV channels and digital platforms indulged in media-driven adjudication, disseminating speculative narratives, selectively leaked materials, and unverified allegations, engineering public perception and impairing the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.
The court said it amounts to a calculated media-driven adjudication, fostering a parallel narrative and engendering prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The continued telecast of such content, despite injunction orders, reflects a blatant disregard for judicial authority and contributes to the creation of a “carnival atmosphere of justice”, as noticed in Sheppard v Maxwell.
“Such broadcasts, which border on trial by headlines, cannot be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law, particularly when they are aired in willful disobedience of binding injunctions and in a manner that tends to interfere with the administration of justice. The continued broadcast in the teeth of civil court injunctions, orders of this court and statutory prohibitions amounts to subversion of due process, erosion of adjudicatory neutrality, interference with administration of justice and prima facie contempt of court,” the court noted.
The court also stated that the complaint imposes a mandatory obligation on the Ministry of Information and MEITY. Their failure to act is arbitrary and unsustainable. The material on record discloses prima facie violations of statutory provisions and judicial orders, it added.
