CM Siddaramaiah visits Rakesh Shetty who was sentenced to 3 months jail

Karkala

In what may cause damage to the stature of the office of the Chief Minister (CM), Siddaramaiah visited the residence of Managing Director of Power TV Rakesh Shetty, who was sentenced to three months in jail. The residence is located at Yennehole in Karkala taluk.

The blrpost.com has secured photographs of CM Siddaramaiah’s visit on Wednesday. It should be noted that a Bengaluru Rural court on January 6 ordered the detention of Shetty in civil prison for three months for wilfully violating a court injunction that barred the channel from airing defamatory content against senior IPS officer Dr B R Ravikanthe Gowda. Shetty moved the Karnataka High Court against the order; however, he is yet to get relief.

The civil detention order was first reported by this website and was later carried by most of the mainstream media, including Indian Express. After this, Shetty stopped appearing on his news channel. Though this was widely reported, the CM chose to visit Shetty’s house, raising several questions about the compulsion for the visit.

Sources in the Congress party said that normally the CM does not visit tainted personalities, but this visit has raised eyebrows among many. A source said, “There was absolutely no requirement to visit the individual when he is under sentence. This has caused damage to the CM’s office and embarrassment for the party as his channel allegedly peddles right-wing propaganda.”

Minister for Primary and Secondary Education Madhu Bangarappa also visited along with Siddaramaiah. A source in the party asked what message the CM and Bangarappa wanted to send by visiting his house. CM was on his official tour to costal districts.

What is the order

In a detailed order, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Abdul Saleem, held that Power TV (Power Smart Media Private Limited), represented by its Managing Director Rakesh Sanjeeva Shetty, had deliberately disobeyed an interim order of temporary injunction passed on September 8, 2023. 

The court found that despite having clear knowledge of the injunction, the channel went ahead and broadcast derogatory programmes targeting IPS officer Ravikanthegowda. The order was passed on January 6.

Allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court ruled that the respondent had committed a wilful breach of the injunction and directed that he be detained in civil prison for three months, subject to the petitioner depositing the subsistence allowance as fixed by the State government.

The injunction had restrained Power TV and other defendants from broadcasting, telecasting, publishing or circulating any content that was defamatory, unverified or negatively impacted the image and reputation of Ravikanthegowda, who is an IPS officer. However, the court noted that Power TV aired promos and programmes in September 2023 referring to him as “Dushta IPS Adhikari” and portraying him in a negative and defamatory manner.

The court relied on photographs and video recordings produced by the petitioner, including a pen drive containing footage of the programme titled “Power Breaking” aired on September 23, 2023. The visuals showed the IPS officer’s photograph in uniform along with derogatory captions in Kannada. The court observed that the respondent neither denied the broadcast nor disputed the contents placed on record.

Importantly, the court rejected the defence that contempt proceedings could not be initiated until the main suit was finally decided. Citing Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court judgments, the judge held that even an ex parte interim injunction is binding and must be obeyed so long as it remains in force.

The court also recorded that the respondent had full knowledge of the injunction, having appeared through counsel in the civil suit soon after the interim order was passed. Despite this, the broadcasts continued, amounting to wilful disobedience proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ravikanthegowda had filed the original suit seeking a permanent injunction, an unconditional apology and ₹20 lakh as damages for defamation.