Telangana HC reserves verdict on defamation against TV9 Channel
In a case involving offensive remarks made in a show carried on tv9 news channel following the establishment of telangana state, Justice E.V. Venugopal of the telangana High court reserved decisions. A chargesheet was created in accordance with the criminal petition that was brought up as part of a complaint made by Jarnardhan Goud, an attorney, to the L.B. nagar police Station.
Velicheti ravi Prakash, the former CEO of tv9, filed the criminal plea in an effort to have the accusations against him in the chargesheet thrown out. According to the charges, his station broadcast a programming that intentionally offended telangana state's MLAs and chief minister in order to trigger a breakdown of confidence and spread false information.
There were no such activities intended to create a breach of peace, according to the petitioner's attorney. He further noted that no witness depositions had information regarding the disturbance of the public peace. Counsel further contended that the CEO was unconcerned with the transmission and claimed that even vicarious responsibility would not apply by citing the supreme Court's decision. Counsel acknowledged that while the alleged charges may be offensive, they do not threaten public tranquilly.
However, the respondents' legal counsel countered that the petitioners had already apologised for the offence and that the trial court was already hearing the present criminal case. Additionally, he said that the broadcast had offended not just the government but also the entirety of telangana, and that similar instances had previously been handled. He further emphasised that without a CEO, the station would not operate and there would be no news broadcast or published. The court deferred the subject for orders after hearing the opposing arguments from both counsels.
Velicheti ravi Prakash, the former CEO of tv9, filed the criminal plea in an effort to have the accusations against him in the chargesheet thrown out. According to the charges, his station broadcast a programming that intentionally offended telangana state's MLAs and chief minister in order to trigger a breakdown of confidence and spread false information.
There were no such activities intended to create a breach of peace, according to the petitioner's attorney. He further noted that no witness depositions had information regarding the disturbance of the public peace. Counsel further contended that the CEO was unconcerned with the transmission and claimed that even vicarious responsibility would not apply by citing the supreme Court's decision. Counsel acknowledged that while the alleged charges may be offensive, they do not threaten public tranquilly.
However, the respondents' legal counsel countered that the petitioners had already apologised for the offence and that the trial court was already hearing the present criminal case. Additionally, he said that the broadcast had offended not just the government but also the entirety of telangana, and that similar instances had previously been handled. He further emphasised that without a CEO, the station would not operate and there would be no news broadcast or published. The court deferred the subject for orders after hearing the opposing arguments from both counsels.