Karnataka High Court Relief To News Channel Btv Kannada
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has stated that orders of short-term injunctions may be granted solely in opposition to those that are made defendants within the go well with and restraining orders in opposition to third events who should not made events to the go well with can’t be granted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus whereas permitting a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Personal Restricted who had challenged an ex-parte short-term injunction order handed by the Metropolis Civil and Classes Courtroom whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada’s social media web page in April this yr by all social media platforms.
The excessive courtroom stated “Short-term injunctions may be granted solely in opposition to those that are made defendants within the go well with. Restraint orders in opposition to third events who should not made events to the go well with can’t be granted by any cannon of legislation. Whereas litigants could make or could not make sure events as defendants, although looking for a prayer in opposition to these individuals, however, the involved Courtroom can’t blissfully ignore the legislation and go the orders of the sort that’s now handed.”
The courtroom additionally imposed a value of ₹50,000 on the primary respondent M/s Eaglesight Media Personal Restricted (who was the plaintiff earlier than the trial courtroom and had lodged a lawsuit in opposition to the petitioner), which the excessive courtroom directed could be payable to the petitioners.
The petitioners claimed that within the third week of April, 2025 all social media platforms by their social media Administrator with none reference, however vaguely referring to an order of the civil Courtroom, had blocked the social media web page of the petitioners. On looking out the petitioners got here to know in regards to the civil go well with filed by their rival M/s Eaglesight Media Personal Restricted, and within the stated go well with there’s an order of restraint of use or airing of Btv Kannada of their respective social media web page.
The petitioners contended that the petitioner no. 2–M/s Btv Kannada Personal Restricted, specifically just isn’t made a celebration, whereas the complete narration is on petitioner no. 2 and thus there’s violation of ideas of pure justice and violation of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
Nevertheless, the respondent referred to the sooner litigation of the yr 2022 wherein the 2nd petitioner had suffered a restraint order. It was stated that this go well with is barely a continuation of that restraint order. These petitioners needn’t have been events earlier than the involved Courtroom, because the prayer that was sought within the go well with was to restrain social media platforms from a specific motion. It didn’t concern these petitioners. Due to this fact, on the bottom that they weren’t made events, the order can’t be interfered with.
Findings:
The bench referred to the plaint filed by M/s Eaglesight and famous that the complete plaint averments would clearly point out that each paragraph is devoted for making allegations in opposition to petitioner no. 2. All of the litigations between the 2 are narrated. Primarily based upon the plaint averments, the involved Courtroom passes an order on an software beneath Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC granting short-term injunction, the excessive courtroom stated.
Following which it stated “There may be an advert interim ex-parte short-term injunction on an software filed by the plaintiff. The order right away impacts the rights of the petitioners. When the complete pleadings and the prayer are pointed in opposition to the petitioners, the involved Courtroom ought to not have granted an accused-interim short-term injunction restraining the defendants from appearing in a specific method, which might right away have an effect on the rights of the petitioners.”
It added “It’s trite that what needs to be performed immediately, can’t be performed not directly. An oblique methodology of retaining the petitioners away by not arraying them as events and submitting the O.S.No.2499 of 2025 was itself a doubtful step, on the a part of the first respondent/plaintiff.”
“The direct impact of the prayer that’s sought was that the petitioners couldn’t use their Btv emblem in all social media platforms; it doesn’t have an effect on the social media platform however it impacts the 2nd petitioner. The social media platforms that are made as defendants are solely intermediaries,” it stated.
The excessive courtroom noticed that the best of petitioner no. 2 was taken away with out listening to and with out making the 2nd petitioner a celebration. The excessive courtroom underscored that whereas the Courtroom has energy to grant a brief injunction beneath Order 39 Guidelines 1 and a couple of CPC, it nonetheless “can’t be granted in opposition to an individual who just isn’t even a celebration”.
Permitting the Btv’s petition the courtroom directed the M/s Eaglesight to implead the petitioners as defendants within the topic go well with, failing which, no order may be handed in opposition to the petitioners at any level in the course of the subsistence of the go well with.
Look: Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar a/w Advocate Kashinath J D for Petitioners.
Senior Advocate Ok.N Phanindra a/w Advocate Arnav A Bagalwadi for R-1.
Advocate Varun Pathak for R4.
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Personal Restricted & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025
