Kerala High Court Dismisses Reporter TV's Plea Against Direction To Produce Allegedly Contemptuous News Items Broadcasted On 2017 Actor Assault Case

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed on behalf of Reporter TV challenging the order of a Sessions Court directing the news channel to produce the news items, including discussions and interviews, broadcasted by it from December 25, 2021 to October 21, 2022, in connection with the 2017 Actor Assault case. The direction was issued in a petition seeking reference to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly broadcasting details of the trial. The 2017 case pertains to the alleged abduction and sexual assault of an actor in a moving car in the year 2017.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "The purpose of the statute directing trial of certain categories of cases to be held in camera has a salutary objective. No person, including the press, can report what transpires inside the court or discuss or publish the statement of witnesses or even disclose the evidence in cases that are being tried in camera. When allegations are raised about publishing details of a trial of an in camera proceedings, it is essential, in public interest, as well for the court, to ascertain details of the matter published or telecasted". The Court thus went on to observe that, "The impugned order merely directs the petitioners to produce matters that are already in the public domain and hence the order cannot cause any prejudice also." Factual BackgroundOn details of the case, including scandalous and malicious statements, allegedly being published in the media, the Sessions Court had issued an order dated March 19, 2020, on the petition filed by the second respondent Malayalam film actor Dileep, who is also the 8th accused in the crime. It was directed that nobody ought to print or publish the proceedings in connection with the trial, except the matters permitted in Nipun Saxena and Anr v. Union of India & Ors. (2019). Subsequently, actor Dileep filed another petition seeking a reference to the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners, alleging that from December 25, 2021, Reporter TV had indulged in broadcasting false, fabricated and misleading matters relating to the trial with a view to cause prejudice against the court "in an orchestrated attempt to derail the trial of the case". The content of the programme telecast on December 25, 2021 was also produced to show the same. It was contended that the broadcast was made with the knowledge that the Sessions case was directed to be conducted in camera. It was further alleged that a parallel trial was being conducted by the petitioners through the TV channel. This was denied by the petitioners who averred that the restriction imposed was only with respect to reporting transactions that happen inside the court and form part of the enquiry and trial only and that when persons come forward and disclose matters, the same could not be attributed as contemptuous.While the above petition was pending consideration, another petition was filed by the actor for accepting a pen-drive as evidence of various channel discussions and interviews conducted on several days by the petitioners, which was also objected to by the latter on the ground that the same contained only portions of interviews and short clippings of conversations that could not convey a complete picture of the context in which those conversations were broadcasted. It is in this context that the Sessions Judge issued the impugned order directing the petitioners to produce the interviews and channel discussions that was broadcasted by them between December 25, 2021 till October 21, 2022. The petitioners have challenged the same in the present petition. Arguments Raised It was contended by the counsels for the petitioners that in case of pending criminal cases, the Court is precluded from raising the same issue as contempt of Court as per the proviso to Section 10 of the Act. It was argued that the Sessions Court was compelling the petitioners to provide pieces of evidence which could be self-incriminatory as per Article 20(3). The contention regarding the 2nd respondent having no locus standi as he was a third party against whom no right could be sought to be enforced was also raised. Additionally, it was argued that the 2nd respondent had only sought for matters telecasted from December 25, 2021 till April 5, 2022, but the Sessions Court had directed the production of materials broadcasted till October 21, 2022, which was beyond what had been sought for. On the other hand, it was argued by the counsels for the respondents that the impugned order was only a step in the enquiry, which could not be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was contended that the proviso to Section 10 would not apply, as portrayed by various Apex Court decisions in this regard, and that the registration of an FIR would not bar the initiation of contempt of court proceedings. Additionally, it was averred that Article...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Reporter TV's Plea Against Direction To Produce Allegedly Contemptuous News Items Broadcasted On 2017 Actor Assault Case

Navya Benny

Tags