45 Media Organisations Restrained From Showing Defamatory Material Against A BJP MLA And His Son
A Bengaluru civil court Judge Balagopalakrishna recently restricted several media organisation from showing defamatory content against BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa and his son Prashanth Kumar MV. They are currently facing charges of bribe and the office of the son was also recently raided by the Lokayukta Police. The civil court noted that it cannot be said that they are both involved in bribery solely because of a raid on the office.
In the matter at hand, the petition reveals that the media organisations have jointly and severally made defamatory allegations against the BJP MLA and his son by broadcasting many allegations in media as well as other modes. It has been submitted further that the being an MLA , Madal Virupakshappa is a mass leader and the party wanted to assign responsible job to him but the rival parties are floating false news about him through the media.
It was put forth on behalf of the plaintiffs that a special report and panel discussions are continuing in the media by assaulting the character assassination of the plaintiffs.
The court observed that the plaintiff has no issue with the broadcasting of genuine news against him but it is the false news that he has an objection with as it is hindering the goodwill of the plaintiff. The court noted that the way in which media is broadcasting reveals that all the investigations have been leaked by the investigating authorities taking advantage of the same and false news is being broadcasted by the defendants.
The court said that merely because the Lokayukta police has raided the office of Prashanth Kumar MV and seized bundle of notes does not give inference that both the plaintiffs are involved in the huge corruption scandal. The court noted that the amount seized does not become a ground to conclude that the plaintiffs are rank corrupts.
The court said that the constitutional rights given to the media should not be misused sd relied on the Delhi HC decision in Naveen Jindal v, G. Media and the decision in Sri, Maheshwar Idol Power Corporation ltd. V. Chitroopa Palit and anr. and observed that that this is a fit case to dispense the notice as contemplated under Order 30 Rule 3 CPC and grant temporary injunction.
In the light of the aforementioned, the court directed the media organisations which are the defendants from airing or broadcasting or publishing or expressing any defamatory opinion against the plaintiffs in the news channels, public media and concluding any panel discussions in any manner till the next date of hearing.
