Did You Verify The Allegations? Karnataka High Court Orally Asks News Editor In Plea To Quash Defamation Case Filed By Minister KJ George

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 20) orally asked Editor-in-Chief of Kannada Prabha, Ravi Hegde whether the newspaper had tried to verify the veracity of allegations made against minister KJ George, and if the minister was interviewed regarding the same or if any disclaimer was given by the newspaper. The Court was hearing a petition filed by Hegde to quash the criminal defamation complaint lodged against him by the Minister with respect to certain newspaper articles. During the hearing Justice M I Arun orally asked, "Have you verified the veracity of allegations? Have you tried to interview the person whom the allegation is made and taken his opinion and published it and is there sufficient disclaimer given by you". The legislator had in 2020 filed a defamation case against Ravi Krishna Reddy and N R Ramesh, president and general secretary of the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi, and Hegde for making “baseless, deliberate, reckless, malicious and false allegations” against him.It was earlier argued that the Karnataka Rashtriya Samitee issued a Press release, saying that a complaint had been lodged against George before the ED. It is Hegde's case that the articles published by the newspaper have been "parroted" only pursuant to the Samitee's press release and no intention or motive can be attributed to him or the paper.In the previous hearing the court had orally said that media must be responsible in their reporting, remarking for a few TRP ratings, at times, they are destroying the lives of people.Today, Advocate S Sudharsan for Hegde submitted that his instructions were that whatever clarifications the Minister wants to give can be in the form of an interview and it will be published on first page of the newspaper. However senior advocate K N Phanindra appearing for George said that the same was not agreeable to him.Addressing the merits of the case, Sudharsan pointed to the defamation complaint. The court asked if the matter pertained to one article to which Phanindra said that there were other articles also. At the court's query on which article is defamatory, Phanindra said, "Someone takes a press conference and makes some allegations. But the press has to use is responsibility while publishing the articles. You have to find out whether it is true or not. Exception is court records". Sudharsan however said, "I have just parroted the words made in the press conference, I am being prosecuted. Can I have intention to defame is the question before the court when I publish the version of the person who took press conference. I have not made any independent statements". However Phanindra said that Article 21 is equated to reputation, which if pulled down, "will not come back", adding that there has to be some responsibility.The court at this stage orally remarked that only the last article looked like it was defamatory. To which Phanindra said that George had filed the complaint within limitation period and after hearing the summons are issued.Sudharsan said that other press media have also carried the news however only Hegde has been included in the complaint.He said, "I am not attributing my any kind of poetry if I am allowed to say this". Phanindra meanwhile argued, "Suppose if there is a case filed against me or something is before the court then it will fall within exception. But complaint filed before ED will not".Sudharsan however said, "How can their (persons who took the press conference) motive be attributed to me?". The court meanwhile orally asked, "What will be a common man make out of this article?" To which Sudharsan said that a person will only think that such allegations have been made against the respondent.But Phanindra said that the way the TV publication is taken place, shows as if George is behind a cell (prison)."This is the responsibility of the press, milord," Phanindra stressed. Sudharsan argued that whether, Hegde being part of the press, would fall within the exceptions carved out under Section 499 (defamation) IPC have to be looked into. "The persons who took the press conference have not even approached the court. Motives attributed to them cannot be attributed to me. I am urging under exception 8--Good faith," he added. Phanindra however claimed that truth as a defence is a matter of trial and relief cannot be sought under quashing proceeding. After hearing the matter for some time the high court adjourned the matter to August 23, and extended the operation of the interim order till then. Case Title: Ravi Hegde AND Kelachandra Joseph GeorgeCase No: Criminal Petition No: 4209/2021.

Did You Verify The Allegations? Karnataka High Court Orally Asks News Editor In Plea To Quash Defamation Case Filed By Minister KJ George

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Did You Verify The Allegations? Karnataka High Court Orally Asks News Editor In Plea To Quash Defamation Case Filed By Minister KJ George

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers