Defamation Law Insufficient To Deal With 'YouTube Menace': Karnataka HC Orally Remarks In Editor's Plea To Quash Defamation Case By Minister

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 3) orally remarked that the menace of Youtube was so much that the law of defamation was insufficient to tackle it. 

The court made these oral remarks while hearing a petition filed by Editor-in-Chief of Kannada Prabha–Ravi Hegde, seeking to quash the criminal defamation complaint lodged against him by Minister K J George with respect to certain newspaper articles. The court further orally said that the way people are able to get away with defaming requires a policy to govern the same. 

During the hearing, senior Advocate Arun Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, informed Justice MI Arun that the petitioner is appointed, and his role is limited to Kannada Prabha only and that Suvarna News is a different entity.

The court made a suggestion that the petition can be closed if a disclaimer is published by the petitioner in the newspaper in an important place stating that whatever was published was solely based on the statement made by someone else and that the petitioner does not subscribe to that view, and if it has hurt anybody, it regrets the same. 

Shyam submitted to the court that the suggestion would be considered by the petitioner.

Following which, the court orally said:

“You are also involved in the Dharmasthala and all that stuff. Please look at what is happening. The youtube menace is so much. No accountability and the Law of defamation is not sufficient. Intrusion into the private life of a particular person. The way people are able to defame and get away, some policy is required. At times news articles come out which are wrong. There is a greater responsibility cast on editors.”

The court further added, “One has to be responsible; things cannot be taken in a lighter vein. It only hurts a good person; it does not hurt a wrong doer.”

To this, Shyam replied that it brings down the morale of the person.

Then the court suggested that both the accused and complainant sit together and decide, and if the disclaimer is published, the case can be closed.

The court was told that in mediation proceedings held earlier, a proposal was given that the paper would publish on the front page and interview the complaint, it was rejected.

The court thereafter said, "I should refer the matter for mediation". To which the counsels said they would try among themselves first.

The high court then adjourned the hearing to September 18, extended the interim order passed earlier.

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.

Case Title: Ravi Hegde AND Kelachandra Joseph George

Case No: Criminal Petition No: 4209/2021.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Arun Shyam for Advocate Sudarshan Suresh for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate K N Phanindra for Respondent.