'Lives Being Destroyed For Few TRP Ratings': Karnataka HC Orally Remarks In News Editor's Plea To Quash Minister's Defamation Case

Mustafa Plumber

13 Aug 2025 1:48 PM IST

  • Lives Being Destroyed For Few TRP Ratings: Karnataka HC Orally Remarks In News Editors Plea To Quash Ministers Defamation Case

    The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday suggested that the media be responsible in their reporting and remarked that, for a few TRP ratings, at times, they are destroying the lives of people. Justice M I Arun orally said, “See press you people are responsible, you create public opinion, you can build nations. You should understand the potential you have. For a few TRP ratings, we are finding...

    The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday suggested that the media be responsible in their reporting and remarked that, for a few TRP ratings, at times, they are destroying the lives of people.

    Justice M I Arun orally said, “See press you people are responsible, you create public opinion, you can build nations. You should understand the potential you have. For a few TRP ratings, we are finding at times destroying the life of persons. You can report so and so had held a press conference and he said like this, but you cannot give it a colour that it is a fact.”

    The observation was made 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.

    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

    Advocate S Sudharsan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the proceedings against the Minister were only quashed on technical grounds.

    It was argued that the Karnataka Rashtriya Samitee issued a Press release, saying that a complaint had been lodged against the respondent before the ED, and a press conference had been convened by them.  All the articles have been parroted only pursuant to the press release. It was stated that the petitioner had not attributed any intention or motive.

    Senior Advocate K N Phanindra, appearing for the respondent, argued that the order taking cognisance takes note of all the news reports published. This is not the only article published. He added that due to the stay order passed in this case, the trial against the other accused before the trial court is also not going on.

    The bench on going through the articles referred to in the order of the trial court taking cognisance, said, “Press people should understand, they are very powerful, they may not be making equal amounts of money, but they are very very powerful, their words mean a lot. They can make or break things, it can hurt anybody like anything, they have to be careful. A hearsay statement should be like a hearsay and should not be an assertion.”

    Following this, the court said, “Issue an apology and we will quash it.” It added “It is seen time and again that for TRP rating...The point is you have a greater responsibility, just for the sake of TRP ratings, you have to be responsible. This is happening across the spectrum. Come up with an apology, we will close the case.”

    Further, it orally observed “Even if you clarify that you have not made an assertive statement and you intended only to state what has stated in the press conference, you do not know anything about the veracity of that statement, if your comments has hurt somebody or conveyed a different meaning you apologise for it. You were only parroting what he (Reddy) has said, that should suffice. This should be given equal amounts of publicity.”

    Sudharsan sought time to seek instruction from his client on the suggestion made by the court.

    Following this, the court adjourned the hearing to August 20 and extended the interim order earlier granted till the next date.

    Case Title: Ravi Hegde AND Kelachandra Joseph George

    Case No: Criminal Petition No: 4209/2021.

    Appearance: Advocate Sudarshan Suresh for Petitioner.

    Senior Advocate K N Phanindra for Respondent.

    Next Story