“Who has the power to block such content?” Justice Sachin Shanker Magadum asked Adv. MN Kumar, appearing for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), while hearing Kannada actor Darshan’s defamation suit, according to LiveLaw [archived]. The Karnataka High Court sought clarity from the Union Ministeries on which authority can block allegedly defamatory content related to the Renukaswamy murder case.
Darshan’s lawsuit alleged that both ministries refused to act against what he described as a “brazen media trial” after the FIR was filed. Darshan claimed that media accounts had maliciously distorted the facts of the case and constructed a narrative of the police investigation through a ‘fully-fledged social media campaign,’ despite multiple injunction orders issued by the trial court and the High Court.
In 2024, a Bengaluru court issued a gag order prohibiting the media from publishing any defamatory news about Darshan, News18 reported, citing LiveLaw. On April 6, 2026 the Karnataka HC stayed the release of Darshan’s Boss movie, citing similarities to the Renukaswamy murder trial, LiveLaw reported.
Why does the Karnataka HC’s question matter? Justice Magadum’s question is important because it is directly related to what MeitY’s recent draft IT rules are trying to achieve: bringing user-generated ‘news and current affairs’ content under MIB’s code of ethics framework, thereby enabling MIB to use its powers under Rules 15 and 16 of the IT Rules.
- Rule 15 sets out the process for blocking notices, allowing an authorized officer, with the MIB secretary’s approval, to order deletion, modification, or blocking of content.
- Rule 16 grants authority to block information in an “emergency.”
MIB asked for jurisdiction over news and current affairs content, said S Krishnan at a media briefing, as reported by The Print. He addressed the motivations behind the draft amendments to the IT Rules.
When the Karnataka HC asked this question, Adv. MN Kumar replied that Section 69A of the IT Act is on a “different footing” and thus “We have no control over it,”. However, Kumar added that courts can pass orders “restraining media houses.”
The court is supposed to hear the matter today [April 9, 2026]. We will update the copy if there are any significant developments in this case.
Also Read:
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
