'Trial By Headlines': Karnataka HC Orders Action Against Media Coverage In Darshan Case, Says Press Can't Become Judge, Jury & Executioner

In a significant order upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to act upon a complaint against 'media trial' filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who is the prime accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.

The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while allowing the writ petition in part, emphasised that the Ministries are under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint and see if the impugned broadcasts prima facie violated the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

On another note, the court did not take kindly to the counterproductive role that the media has been allegedly playing while Darshan's case is sub judice.

“…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. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights”, the high court laid down in unequivocal terms about media crossing the boundaries deliberately.

After examining Darshan's complaint, if prima facie violations by media channels are found, the authorities are also obliged to take action under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, which includes regulating, suspending, or prohibiting such prejudicial broadcasting, the court mandated in the order. The court has given a deadline to the respondents to act upon Darshan's aforesaid complaint within six weeks.

Additionally, the court has also asked the centre to examine the necessity of prohibiting the broadcast, suspending permissions or licences, or imposing penalties against the erring media channels that have been named, as permissible under the law.

The single judge bench, while directing the respondent authorities to file a compliance report within 12 weeks, also observed that the impugned media broadcasts 'prima facie' violate Rule 6 of the Programme Code under the Cable TV Networks Rules, 1994 and judicial orders.

Rule 6(1)(d), (e), (f) and (i) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 prohibit programmes that are defamatory, contemptuous of court, prejudicial to public order, or that malign individuals. Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, empower authorities to regulate, prohibit, or suspend transmission of non-compliant programmes.

“…The ongoing media narrative poses a serious threat to the petitioner's right to a fair trial under Article 21”, the court further opined, giving liberty to the Kannada Actor to initiate contempt proceedings against erring media portals and channels if required.

"The material placed on record, particularly the clippings produced, unfortunately depict a disturbing trend wherein the broadcast media has gone 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 are openly displayed. Such programmes are telecast on every date of hearing, thereby converting pending judicial proceedings into a form of public spectacle," the court observed in the order dated April 30.

Noting the above, the court also expressed its concern about a 'media-driven adjudication', fostering 'a parallel narrative and engendering prejudicial pre-trial publicity'.

For context, Darshan is accused of being involved in the killing of his 33-year-old 'fan' over sending obscene messages to his co-actress Pavithra Gowda. He was aggrieved by the alleged inaction on part of the MIB as well as the MeitY to restrain the 'defamatory content' against him.

He sought the court's intervention to make the central government act on his January 2026 complaint that lists out all the controversial content against him and his family, including nearly 1000 YouTube and Meta links. In the writ petition and subsequent hearings, the Kannada actor had accused the media of transforming the sub‑judice murder trial into a 'macabre spectacle' to boost TRP and ad revenue, causing 'irreparable harm' to his right to a fair trial under Article 21.

Before the High Court, Darshan alleged that a plethora of news channels, including The Republic TV (Kannada), TV9 (Kannada), Public TV (Kannada), Asianet Suvarna, TV5, Republic World, Power TV News, India Today and others, have routinely violated injunction orders passed by the courts on the same issue.

Court's Further Observations

Addressing the actor's grievances, the High Court opined that the respondent authorities had a 'mandatory obligation' to respond to the actor's complaint from January 2026, and that their continued inaction amounted to 'ex facie arbitrary, contrary to statutory mandate, and violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation'. The single judge bench also concluded that the television channels' impugned broadcasts violated the Cable TV Networks Act and the Contempt of Courts Act.

“…The material on record unmistakably discloses violations of Rule 6(1)(d), (e), (f) and (i) of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Such broadcasts are per se illegal and invite regulatory action under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The acts further attract the mischief of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The digital amplification of such content attracts Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 3(7)(b) of the Intermediary Rules, 2021”, the court said.

The single judge bench relied on the American Supreme Court's judgment in Sheppard v. Maxwell(1966) to criticise the media channels' blatant disregard for judicial authority' and contribution to the creation of a 'carnival atmosphere', despite the existence of injunction orders against Darshan's media trial.

“…By virtually staging courtroom scenes and projecting selective narratives, the media not only risks subverting due process but also erodes adjudicatory neutrality, impairing the petitioner's right to a fair trial. atmosphere of justice”, Justice Magadum added.

Noting that the right to fair trial is 'the most fundamental of freedoms', the court relied on a plethora of other US and European Courts judgments to infer that 'public narratives imputing guilt prior to trial violate the presumption of innocence'.

While disposing of the petition, the court also gave a strict mandate to the concerned ministries to ensure compliance with Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, and Rule 3(7)(b) of the Intermediary Rules, 2021 by the media channels.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Pratham N. The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath a/w CGSC M.N Kumar

Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order