Karnataka High Court orally posed questions to Ravi Hegde, Editor-in-Chief of Kannada Prabha, about the verification of facts in charges printed against Minister K.J. George on Wednesday during a hearing for Hegde’s request for quashing a criminal defamation case lodged by the minister.

Court Questions Verification Of Charges

Justice M.I. Arun questioned Hegde’s lawyer in open court if the newspaper had tried to check the charges leveled against Minister George, if the minister was interviewed for his views, or if a disclaimer was included in the stories. The purpose behind this questioning is to highlight the importance that judiciary lays on media responsibility.

The defamation lawsuit, which was launched by Minister George in 2020, is against Hegde, Karnataka Rashtra Samithi president Ravi Krishna Reddy and general secretary N.R. Ramesh for “baseless, deliberate, reckless, malicious and false allegations.”

Media Responsibility Under Scrutiny

Hegde’s defense in the past had claimed that the articles just “parroted” what was stated in a press release by the Karnataka Rashtriya Samithi, which said a complaint had been filed against George with the Enforcement Directorate (ED). They had claimed that no ill intent could be ascribed to the newspaper or its editor.

At an earlier hearing, the court had made scathing verbal comments regarding media responsibility, observing that occasionally for “a few TRP ratings, they are ruining the lives of people.”

Offer To Interview Rejected, Case Adjourned

On Wednesday, Advocate S. Sudharsan, who appeared for Hegde, told the court that his client offered to print any clarifications or interviews by Minister George on the front page of the newspaper. Senior Advocate K.N. Phanindra, appearing for George, turned this down.

Phanindra stressed that although press conferences may have claims, it is up to the media to confirm their truth, adding, “You have to find out whether it is true or not. Exception is court records.” He claimed that reputation, comparable to Article 21, is hard to revive once lost and therefore media accountability is needed.

Sudharsan replied that reporting of statements made in a press conference should not be taken as an intention to defame, particularly when other publications reported the news, but only Hegde was covered under the complaint. He cited exceptions under Section 499 (defamation) IPC, specifically “good faith.”

The court verbally observed that only the “last article” seemed to be potentially defamatory. The case has been adjourned till August 23, and operation of the interim order has been extended till then.