Karnataka HC refuses to quash case against news channel's MD, CEO for making allegations about Dy. CM and Collector

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash criminal case against a Tumakuru-based news channel's executives in connection with a YouTube video which allegedly portrayed Deputy Chief Minister Dr G Parameshwar as being in a relationship with Tumakuru District Collector Shubha Kalyan IAS.

Justice V Srishananda rejected the petitions filed by Prajashakti Channel Managing Director Shabbir Pasha and CEO V Kusuma, seeking quashing of the criminal case.

During the hearing, the Court took strong exception to the language employed by the petitioners and the insinuations made by them in the video.

“The background voice in the program is yours. You are the one who said that the Deputy Chief Minister is in love with the District Collector. Would it be okay if somebody speak like this to the daughters of your house? Do you alone have protection of Article 21 of the Constitution? Don't they?” the bench asked.

The Court also questioned the accused about the impact such allegations could have on the dignity and reputation of the Deputy Commissioner and her family members, particularly her children.

“You were arrested after collecting and checking your voice sample. Is it your job that to destroy other people house morning to night? Are there no daughters in your house? Wouldn't District Collector get upset if said that she had a relationship with a minister? Don't they have children? Doesn't Article 21 of the Constitution apply to them? If the child of District Collector isasked in school that your mother had relationship with a minister, would it not hurt her? Shouldn't they live with dignity? Don't you know that you are saying this to a District Collector?” the bench asked.

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on July 2 alleging that a video uploaded on the YouTube channel “Detective Legends”, titled “DCM Parameshwar Love Story”, contained objectionable statements concerning the Deputy Chief Minister and IAS officer Shubha Kalyan.

The petitioners were accused of giving voice over to the video which was uploaded on the YouTube channel belonging to one Brahmananda Reddy.

They were booked for offences punishable under Sections 79 (words insulting modesty of woman) and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and for offences under the Information Technology Act.

Two separate FIRs were registered against them in two different police stations.

Advocate Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Reddy was the first accused and that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners.

The Court observed that the investigation should be permitted to continue.

“Don't try to break someone else's house. The daughters of everyone's house are respectable. Let the investigation go on. File a memo. Let's dispose one case and dismiss another,” the bench noted.

The judge also questioned the rationale behind portraying the professional interactions between a woman officer and a minister as a romantic relationship.

“If you say this to a deputy Chief Minister, they will tell us (judges) tomorrow too. So many women working with us. For some reason, they put more women in our chamber to work. They all work. You have daughters, mothers, wives. It is our responsibility to look after everyone. We should not blame them all. What sin has the District Collector committed? Is it wrong to be a woman? If a minister is called to a meeting, shouldn't she go? Shouldn't she praise the minister?” the bench asked.

The Court also expressed concern that such content could be created primarily to generate online engagement.

In light of the above, the Court refused to quash the case.

However, the Court questioned the State over the registration of two FIRs concerning the same incident.

“Why are you filing multiple complaints for the same matter? Since it is already a case, another complaint should have been considered witness. This is your policing?” the bench asked Additional State Government Pleader Surya Mukundaraj

The Bench then directed the State to retain one case and close the other, asking it to file a memo to that effect.

The matter will be taken up next on September 11.