The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Karnataka): The Karnataka High Court has ruled against quashing defamation proceedings aimed at Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd, Suvarna News 24/7, and two other entities, proceedings that began with a complaint from Divya Spandana. Spandana lodged a private complaint, seeking to hold the defendants accountable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation. This legal move followed after a trial court, having reviewed Spandana’s sworn statement, summoned the accused on June 13, 2016.
The accusation centers around a May 31, 2013, broadcast by the defendants, allegedly implicating Kannada film actresses, including Spandana, in a cricket betting and spot-fixing scandal. The complaint suggests that the manner of the broadcast effectively portrayed Spandana as involved in the scandal, adversely affecting her image and prompting inquiries within the film industry regarding the broadcast’s accuracy.
The defense contended that their broadcast merely echoed reports from other media outlets and argued that the complaint’s allegations didn’t meet the threshold for defamation, suggesting protection under the fourth exception to Section 499 of the IPC, indicating no intention to defame.
However, the court pointed to Section 499 of the IPC, interpreting the accused’s actions—specifically, their visual representations—as potentially damaging to Spandana’s reputation, thereby establishing a prima facie case for trial under Section 500 of the IPC. The court rejected the defense’s reliance on the fourth exception to Section 499 of the IPC, highlighting the lack of evidence suggesting any judicial proceedings against Spandana related to cricket betting or spot-fixing. To invoke this exception, the publication needed to be a substantially accurate report of court proceedings or their outcomes. Without such evidence, the court found the petitioners’ argument unconvincing.
In conclusion, the petition to dismiss the defamation case was denied, signifying the continuation of legal proceedings against the media firms. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s careful consideration of defamation claims and the importance of substantiating public allegations with credible evidence, especially when such claims have the potential to tarnish individual reputations significantly.
Advocate Sudharshan Suresh represented the petitioners in this matter, emphasizing the legal challenges faced by media entities in navigating the delicate balance between reporting and the potential for defamation.
