The Karnataka Assembly on Tuesday rejected the review petition of two tabloid journalists and upheld it's earlier resolution sentencing them to a year of imprisonment and a penalty of Rs 10,000 each for breach of privilege.
It may be recalled that on June 21, the Karnataka Assembly had passed a resolution sentencing two Bengaluru journalists to a year in jail over charges of “breach of privilege”. The journalists—Ravi Belagere of Hai Bangalore and Anil Raju of Yelahanka Voice—were accused of publishing reports that “defamed” three legislators. Approving the resolution, Speaker K.B. Koliwad also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on both Belagere and Raju, failing the payment of which their jail term would be extended by another six months.
The decision had provoked a backlash. As media organisations and opposition parties came out against it, the ruling Congress distanced itself from the resolution. K.C. Venugopal, Congress general secretary in charge of Karnataka, had said Chief Minister Siddaramaiah would request Koliwad to withdraw the resolution. “The Congress is against harassment of journalists and believes in the freedom of speech,” he had said.
But on Tuesday, during the winter session of the State legislature at Belagavi, Koliwad put forth the review petition for reconsideration of the house, which deliberated on it and finally decided to put the matter to vote. Barring former law minister and BJP MLA S. Suresh Kumar and JDS member Y.S.V. Datta, who opined that the case did not qualify as a breach of privilege, a majority of the members supported the execution of the resolution.
It is a major setback for the editors, an earlier joint petition filed by Belegere and Raju was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, who heard the petition, had advised both the parties to arrive at an “amicable solution”. He also asked the journalists to appear before the speaker, but declined to pass an order restraining the police from arresting them. The judge, however, said the journalists could revive their petition should the need arise.
The matter is yet to be resolved even two weeks after the resolution was passed. On July 3, Belagere and Raju appeared before Koliwad, after the state government gave an undertaking that they would not be arrested. Their counsel, Shankarappa, submitted a petition asking Koliwad to review the punishment imposed, saying the reports that the assembly had perceived to be a breach of privilege were outside the legislature’s ambit. Also, the legislators who complained against the journalists, he said, did not face any obstacle in discharging their duties. Koliwad accepted the petition, but countered Shankarappa’s contention by reading out portions from the "Practice and procedure of Parliament” by M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher.
Interestingly, the reports in question were published in September 2014, and Koliwad was one of the three MLAs who had complained to Kagodu Thimmappa, the then speaker. Thimmappa had referred the matter to the privileges committee, chaired by former minister Kimmane Rathnakar. Koliwad became speaker in July 2016.
The issue, however, has brought to focus the powers and privileges of elected representatives and the need for codifying them. The state has witnessed several ‘breach of privilege’ cases where the house reprimanded journalists for ‘defamatory’ articles, but it is for the first time that the house has decided to order the imprisonment of journalists.
Editors Guild of India had described the resolution passed by the assembly as “pernicious” and the speaker’s decision to approve it as violation of the fundamental right of freedom of speech. It said the right to try and sentence journalists in defamation cases rests with courts of law. Karnataka Assembly, it said, cannot and should not misuse its powers and privileges to sentence any member of the press for libel.
“This privilege, under which the action has been taken, is not even codified,” said a statement issued by the guild. “If individuals of the legislature feel that their reputations have been affected, they are free to take the matter to court against the journalist concerned or the publication…. [They cannot] act as complainant, prosecutor and judge, as they did in this case.”
Interestingly, during the hearing of the petition filed by Belagere and Raju, Justice Hinchigeri asked A.S. Ponnanna, additional advocate general, whether there were any guidelines to determine the quantum of punishment for breach of privilege. He also noted that it was “disdainful disobedience” on the journalists’ part that they had not appeared before the privileges committee despite having been summoned several times. “The editors invited the trouble by staying away from the [privileges committee] proceedings. The fourth estate has all the liberty and freedom, but it should ensure that they do not go below the belt,” said the judge, referring to the use of unparliamentary words in the reports.
S. Suresh Kumar, BJP spokesperson and former law minister, had said the hasty manner in which the breach of privilege motion was moved in the house, and the harsh sentencing of the journalists, went against parliamentary decorum. “It raises suspicion that the legislature is intolerant of the media,” he said. “A breach of privilege happens when a member is prevented from discharging his duties. But the matters presented before the house in this case did not qualify as breach of privilege. I have talked to the privileges committee chairman about the need to withdraw the order, as it taints the image of both the legislature and the media.”
