Mumbai: A Bengaluru City civil court has imposed costs of ₹10,000 on Reporter TV and dismissed its defamation suit against several media organisations, holding that the channel misused an interim court order and later withdrew the case without providing any explanation.
In an order dated December 18, the Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court also directed Reporter TV to restore all articles, videos and URLs that were taken down following an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted on October 25, 2025. The court ordered that the content be made publicly accessible within one week, clarifying that no mandatory injunction for permanent deletion had ever been issued.
Suit Withdrawn After Interim Relief Was Stayed
Reporter TV had filed the civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against what it described as defamatory reporting by multiple media outlets and digital platforms, including The News Minute. Among the reports challenged were stories related to the Muttil illegal tree-felling case in Kerala, in which the channel’s directors—the Augustine brothers—are accused and face ongoing criminal proceedings.
However, the interim injunction granted by the trial court was stayed by the Karnataka High Court on December 3. Soon after the defendants appeared before the trial court and challenged the injunction, Reporter TV moved a memo seeking to withdraw the suit, without assigning any reasons.
The trial judge observed that this sequence reflected a lack of bona fides on the part of the plaintiff. Withdrawing the case after securing interim relief—and following the High Court’s stay—amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, the court said, adding that such conduct caused hardship to defendants, affected public access to information, and wasted judicial time.
Allegations of Misuse of Court Order
As reported by media outlets, several defendants argued before the court that Reporter TV had obtained the interim order by suppressing material facts and then misused it to pressure news organisations into taking down content. They pointed out that legal notices were subsequently issued claiming the court had ordered permanent deletion of reports and videos, even though no such direction had been passed.
The court examined one such notice and found it misleading, noting that it incorrectly asserted that the court had directed permanent removal of content, despite the absence of any mandatory injunction.
Counsel for Reporter TV told the court that he was unaware of his clients’ conduct at the time of filing the suit and submitted that the decision to withdraw the case was taken after the interim order was stayed by the High Court.
Reference to Supreme Court Guidance
While allowing the withdrawal of the suit, the court imposed costs and dismissed the matter as “not pressed.” It also referred to a 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd v Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, which cautioned courts against granting interim injunctions in defamation cases that could be weaponised to silence media reporting and public participation through prolonged litigation.
Importantly, the court clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the defamation allegations themselves. Its order focused squarely on the conduct of the plaintiff and the misuse of interim judicial relief, reiterating that all content removed due to the October 25 injunction must now be restored within the stipulated timeframe.
