Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Kannada News Channel Power TV In Plea Challenging Restraint On Its Broadcast

The Karnataka High Court has denied an appeal filed by M/s Power Smart Media Private Limited which operates Kannada news channel 'Power TV' challenging the interim order passed by a single judge bench, restraining it from broadcasting.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind had earlier heard the parties and reserved the order.The Bench took into consideration that since 2021 there the channel is operating without a valid licence and several notices alleging violation have been issued to it, and said “Temporary prohibition of broadcast in light of the facts and situation and further in view that competent authorities are to try and deal with on merits the show cause notice could not be said to be violating the right of broadcast.” Further the court said “There is no gainsay that permission to uplinking and downlink accorded to TV channel was valid upto 12-10-21 only, although company has applied for renewal. It is in these circumstances that the single judge passed the impugned order. The Court rejected the submission of the appellants claiming violation of their Fundamental right to free speech and expression by not allowing to telecast the program in view of the impugned order. It added that the temporary phenomenon of prohibition of broadcast cannot be equated with prohibition of Fundamental Rights, which themselves were subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court also noted that the single judge bench order did not set any time limit for proceedings pending before the Union of India to be concluded pursuant to the show cause notice. It said “Appeals are disposed off by directing appellants to file further reply within one week from today. Competent authority of R1 (Union of India) should hear the respondents if they so choose, personal hearing if required may be given. The competent authority to decide on the show cause notice as well as all renewal applications in consideration with law after hearing the respondents. Entire exercise will have to be completed with an outer limit of six weeks.”BackgroundA single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar had on June 26, passed the impugned order while hearing a petition filed by H M Ramesh Gowda and others.It had said that "proceedings have been initiated by the Union of India pursuant to the final show-cause notice dated 09.02.2024, it would be just and appropriate to direct respondent No.3/ respondent No.5 and other private respondents not to continue with any broadcast and restrain all the private respondents from carrying on any broadcast activity till the next date of hearing. Re-list this matter on 09.07.2024.”Senior Advocate S S Naganand appearing for the appellant company argued that the single judge bench could not have on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the Ministry passed the impugned order.He said that in February 2024 they received the show cause notice to which they had submitted a detailed reply and yet no order had been made by the Ministry. It was submitted that the single bench was misled by showing the show cause notice and thus it held that show cause notice was issued so we will stop the telecast.Further, he said that even if the petitioner came to court seeking a writ of mandamus, the relief could be to consider his representation and the court could not pass an order stopping the channel's broadcast.He concluded by saying that the of an interim order was to maintain the status quo when parties come before the court. This (impugned order) is serious inroad in Press freedom, Free speech cannot be stifled like this, he contended.Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa also appearing for the appellant argued that the court could not have exercised the power vested with the authority to stop the channel's broadcast.Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath argued that with effect from 12-10-21, M/s Mitcon Infra Project Private Limited did not have a licence for broadcasting and if Mitcon had carried out any broadcast it was contrary to law and illegal.He said that the appellant did not have any right to carry out business as no licence was given. It was stated that merely because permission was granted to change teleporter and satellite it did not amount to the grant of licence to broadcast.Further, it was submitted that the appellant knew about the show cause notice, issued to them and they had even produced documents in response to it. Thus it was stated that the essence of the single judge order was that the appellant did not have the right to carry out business.The counsel for petitioners also made submissions on similar lines. It was said that the Guidelines (Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Satellite Television Channels in India, 2022) mandate that merely because they are permitted to uplink or downlink content it did not mean that a licence to broadcast had been granted.Case Title: M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of India & ANR Case NO: WA 949/2024 c/w WA...

Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Kannada News Channel Power TV In Plea Challenging Restraint On Its Broadcast

Mustafa Plumber

Tags