The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court's finding that Power TV willfully violated an interim injunction by broadcasting content that allegedly harmed the reputation of an IPS officer despite a court order restraining such telecasts. However, the High Court modified the punishment, reducing the earlier three-month civil prison term to one day, subject to strict compliance with several conditions.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from an order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in proceedings initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court had held that Power TV breached an ex parte interim injunction issued on September 8, 2023, which restrained several media houses from broadcasting or publishing material that could allegedly damage the reputation of Dr. B.R. Ravikanthegowda.
After examining photographs and electronic recordings, the trial court concluded that the channel had deliberately violated the injunction and ordered civil imprisonment for three months. Power TV challenged that decision before the High Court.
Appellant's Stand
Power TV argued that the trial court wrongly concluded there had been willful disobedience. It submitted that the broadcasts formed part of legitimate journalistic activity and did not amount to a breach of the injunction.
The channel also contended that its Managing Director could not be held personally responsible for editorial decisions, arguing that any liability should rest with those directly responsible for publishing or broadcasting the content.
Court's Observations
Justice K.S. Hemalekha rejected the argument that the Managing Director could escape responsibility merely because he was not the editor.
The Court noted that the Managing Director had signed the written statement, participated throughout the proceedings, filed applications, and led evidence on behalf of the channel. In these circumstances, he could not later deny responsibility for compliance with the court's injunction.
The High Court found that the channel had telecast programmes on September 22 and 23, 2023, including content referring to the respondent as "Dushta IPS Adhikari" and displaying captions and visuals portraying him negatively, despite being fully aware of the subsisting injunction.
Observing that a party cannot unilaterally interpret a court order, the bench said:
“Once such an order has been passed, the appellant was bound to strictly comply with the same.”
The Court further emphasised that if the broadcaster believed clarification was required, it ought to have approached the court instead of proceeding with the telecast.
On the balance between media freedom and judicial orders, the bench observed:
“The freedom of speech cannot be invoked as a justification to disregard and undermine a subsisting judicial order.”
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court confirmed the trial court's finding that Power TV had willfully violated the interim injunction. However, considering the facts of the case, it modified the punishment.
Instead of three months' civil imprisonment, the Court reduced the detention to one day, subject to the channel filing an undertaking to comply with the injunction, broadcasting an apology expressing regret for violating the court's order, and paying ₹50,000 as costs to the respondent within the prescribed period.
The Court also directed that if these conditions are not fulfilled within the stipulated time, the original order directing three months' civil imprisonment would automatically revive.
It further instructed the trial court to proceed with the underlying civil suit expeditiously.
Case Details
Case Title: Power TV v. Dr. B.R. Ravikanthegowda
Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 694 of 2026 (CPC)
Judge: Justice K.S. Hemalekha
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
