Prima Facie Karnataka HC Division Bench Did Not Continue Single Judge Order Restraining Broadcast Of Power TV: Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the division bench while disposing of the appeals against the interim order recorded that the petitioners had withdrawn their writ petitions in which the interim order against Power TV was originally passed.

“Prima facie, on a plain reading of the operative part of the order, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge was not continued while disposing of the appeals and, in fact, what is recorded is that the original writ petitioners withdrew the writ petitions”, the Court noted.

The Court also clarified that notwithstanding the stay previously granted to the HC orders restraining the broadcast of the channels, the competent authority can pass an order on the show-cause notice as outlined in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment.

A show-cause notice was issued to the channel on February 9, 2024, by the Union Government, citing the absence of a valid license since October 2021.

A Single Judge on June 26 passed the interim order restraining the broadcast of the channel in a writ petition filed by HM Gowda and A Ramya Ramesh (original petitioners), after noting that the Union Government has issued a show-cause notice to the channel. 

On July 3, 2024, the Karnataka High Court division bench passed the impugned order disposing of the appeal by Power TV against the interim order with the following directions in paragraph 7:

1. The appellants have the right to reply to the show-cause notice dated February 9, 2024. If a reply has already been filed, they may submit an additional reply if they wish.
2. Such a reply must be filed within one week from the date of the order.
3. If the appellants apply for it, the competent authority of the Union of India shall grant them a personal hearing, with the date to be communicated to them.
4. The personal hearing process must be completed within one week from the date of the appellants' application.
5. The competent authority shall decide on the show-cause notice within three weeks, considering the appellants' replies and other relevant factors, and must issue a reasoned order.
6. Following this, the competent authority shall also decide on the renewal application in accordance with the law, considering the facts and circumstances, and issue the necessary order.
7. The entire process, including all stages, must be completed within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the order.

Given these directions, the original petitioners agreed that the issues raised and the prayers in the petitions had been effectively resolved. The impugned order recorded that the original petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petitions.

The Court was dealing with SLPs filed by Power TV against the division bench order of the Karnataka High Court.

On July 12, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed both the HC orders, orally remarking that the case against Power TV appeared politically motivated, given the allegations that the channel was restrained from airing stories related to sex scandals involving leaders of the JD(S) party.

On November 14, counsel for the respondents-original petitioners argued that despite the single judge's interim order, the channel Power TV is still being broadcast.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court opined that the division bench of the HC did not continue the single bench interim order. The Court further clarified that the pendency of the SLPs would not preclude respondent-original petitioners from seeking clarification or modification of the High Court's impugned judgment and order.

The Court has scheduled the SLPs concerning the broadcast restrictions on the Kannada news channel Power TV for hearing on March 4, 2025.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 14255-14256/2024

Case Title – M/S. Power Smart Media Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.