LI Network
Published on: 4 August 2023 at 12:10 IST
The Karnataka High Court has called upon individuals responsible for managing print and electronic media to exercise caution and avoid using inappropriate or defamatory language when presenting news content.
Justice V Srishananda highlighted that a significant portion of society still considers news articles published in newspapers to be the absolute truth, without verifying or corroborating the information.
This trust places a great responsibility on media handlers to show utmost restraint in their choice of words while reporting news items.
The Court emphasized that members of the print and electronic media are expected to carry news in a dignified manner.
However, it criticized certain media outlets for using derogatory terms like ‘Taliban,’ ‘Goonda,’ and ‘Pundatike’ to refer to the lawyer community in their news reports. Such language was deemed intolerable and not in line with the guidelines issued by the Press Council of India.
The Court noted that the media, often referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy, must act with utmost care and caution due to the far-reaching implications their news publications can have on society.
It urged those overseeing media reportage, including Editors and Chief Editors, to focus on achieving this objective.
Regarding the specific case before the Court, the origins dated back to a clash in 2012 between lawyers, police officers, and the media at the premises of the Bengaluru Civil Court. Following this incident, advocates’ associations throughout Karnataka passed a resolution, resulting in lawyers refusing to represent journalists facing criminal charges.
The situation gained attention in the State Legislative Assembly, where a member criticized the advocates’ resolution as displaying a ‘Taliban Mentality.’ In response, the media used inappropriate language in their coverage, labeling the entire advocates’ community as having a ‘Goonda Mentality.’ Subsequently, a practicing advocate, Davalsab Nadaf, filed a private complaint against the media outlets for carrying such reports.
The case continued to trial, and four petitions were later filed by certain daily newspapers, including ‘Lok Shikshan Trust,’ ‘Samyukta Karnataka,’ ‘Hosadiganta,’ ‘Navodaya,’ and ‘Kittur Karnataka.’
The petitioners expressed regret for their publications and requested the Court to quash the criminal case against them, asserting that there was no deliberate intention to defame the advocate community. Taking note of their remorse and the prolonged trial, the Court decided to accept the affidav
its and quash the pending proceedings for the petitioners.
Advocate KL Patil represented the media outlets, while advocate Sadiq N Goodwala represented the complainant, Davalsab Nadaf.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s observations underscore the critical role of media in society and the need for responsible journalism. The Court’s call for restraint and adherence to ethical reporting practices aims to preserve public trust in media accuracy and impartiality.
