A bank of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held that at the time of disposal of the appeals against the interim order, the Division Bench recorded that the petitioners had withdrawn their writ petitions in which the interim order was initially passed against Power TV.

“Prima facie, on a plain reading of the order, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge was not continued in the disposal of the appeals and in fact what is on record is that the original petitioners withdrew the writ. petition“, noted the Court.

The Court also clarified that, despite the provisions stay granted previously to the HC ordinances restricting the broadcasting of channels, the competent authority can issue an order on the broadcast-cause announcement, as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the contested decision.

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

A single judge on June 26 passed the interim order restricting the broadcast of the channel in a writ petition filed by HM Gowda and A Ramya Ramesh (the original petitioners), after noting that the Union Government had issued a broadcast notice for the channel.

On 3 July 2024, the division bench of the Karnataka High Court passed by contested order disposing of Power TV’s appeal against the interim order with the following instructions at paragraph 7:

1. Appellants have the right to respond to the notice of presentation of the case dated February 9, 2024. If a response has already been filed, they may file an additional response if they wish.
2. Such response must be submitted within one week of the date of the order.
3. If the appellants so request, the competent authority of the Union of India shall grant them a personal hearing, the date to be communicated to them.
4. The personal hearing process must be completed within one week from the date of the claimants request.
5. The competent authority shall rule on the notice of presentation of the case within three weeks, taking into account the responses of the appellants and other relevant factors, and shall issue a reasoned order.
6. Subsequently, the competent authority also decides on the renewal request, under the law, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and issues the necessary order.
7. The entire process, including all steps, must be completed within an outer limit of six weeks from the order date.

In view of these instructions, the original petitioners agreed that the issues raised and the prayers in the petitions were effectively disposed of. In the contested ordinance it was recorded that the initial petitioners requested the withdrawal of the registration requests.

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

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

On November 14, counsel for the original respondents-petitioners submitted that despite the single judge’s interim order, the Power TV channel is still on air.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that the division bench of the HC did not continue the interim order of a single bench. The Court further clarified that the pendency of the SLPs would not preclude the respondents from seeking clarifications or modification of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

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

Case no. – Special appeal authorization (C) no. 14255-14256/2024

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