TV anchor not liable for panellist's statement: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Putting a premium on the right to free speech and expression,
Supreme Court
on Friday ordered the release of Sakshi TV anchor K Srinivasa Rao, who was held by Andhra police for abetting alleged derogatory and defamatory statements by a panelist on his live show on Amaravati.
Justices Mishra and Manmohan said, "Rao has not made the statement. His journalistic participation in a live TV show deserves to be protected, so as that of his fundamental right to free speech. Rao shall be released on bail on conditions to be imposed by the trial court."
Guest called Amaravati 'capital of sex workers'
On June 6, political analyst V V R Krishnamraju had appeared as a panelist on a show anchored by Rao on Sakshi TV, considered a mouthpiece of opposition YSR Congress Party which while in govt had abrogated previous TDP dispensation's Amaravati capital project, and referred to the capital as 'capital of sex workers".
Appearing for the 70-year-old Rao, senior advocate Siddharth Dave told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan that he was only hosting the TV show and that the statement is not attributed to him but to a panellist over whom he had no control.
Opposing the plea challenging the arrest, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra said that when the offending and derogatory statement was made against women of Andhra Pradesh, the TV anchor, instead of stopping the panellist, was seen encouragingly laughing.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Play Chess on Your PC, Free
Play Classic Chess
Install Now
Undo
The bench sought the AP government's response to his petition seeking the quashing of the FIR against him. However, it cautioned Rao not to involve himself in any defamatory statement or allow any panelist to make such a statement in live TV shows.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
12 minutes ago
- NDTV
Top Court Orders EVM Recount, Overturns Sarpanch Elections In Haryana
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has overturned the election of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu in Haryana's Panipat district after a court-monitored recount found the appellant securing the highest number of votes. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N.K. Singh ordered the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Panipat, to issue a notification within two days declaring the appellant, Mohit Kumar, elected, and allowing him to assume office immediately. The election for the Sarpanch's post was held on November 2, 2022, in which the respondent, Kuldeep Singh, was declared elected. Mohit Kumar challenged the result before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)- cum-Election Tribunal, which, on April 22, 2025, found grounds for recounting the votes at a booth. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned that decision on July 1, prompting Mohit Kumar to appeal to the apex court. In an order passed on July 31, the Justice Kant-led Bench directed the District Election Officer to produce all the EVMs before the Registrar of the Supreme Court. "The nominated Registrar shall recount the votes, not only of the disputed booth but of all the booths. The recounting shall be duly video-graphed. The recount result shall be duly signed by the learned Registrar, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 or their authorised representative as well as the learned assisting counsel," it ordered. Pursuant to the top court's directive, the OSD (Registrar) recounted the votes from all booths, with the final tally showing Mohit Kumar securing 1,051 votes against Kuldeep Singh's 1,000. Accepting the recount, the Justice Surya Kant-Bench observed: "There being prima facie no reason to doubt the Report submitted by the OSD (Registrar) of this Court, especially when the entire recounting has been duly videographed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be declared as the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu Village, District Panipat, Haryana." However, in the interest of justice, the apex court allowed the parties to agitate the issues, if any, left to be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal, saying that "the Election Tribunal... shall accept the Report of the OSD (Registrar) of this Court as the final and conclusive report so far as the result of recounting of votes is concerned." It clarified that the direction to declare the appellant as the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu in Panipat would remain subject to the final judgment of the Election Tribunal. Disposing of the appeal along with all pending applications, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, as the recounting of votes had been completed following its order.
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Begin by creating shelters for 5,000 dogs': SC's Aug 11 full order now out
The Supreme Court has, in its August 11 order to capture and put in shelters all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, called it 'a progressive exercise' — acknowledging that shelters could take time to be built and increased — and told the authorities to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next six-eight weeks'. Under no circumstances should the dogs be released back onto the streets, says SC's August 11 order.(PTI) The matter has since been referred to a larger bench of three judges for a hearing on August 14. Animals rights activists and several other sections questioned the August 11 order, arguing that it wasn't rooted in science even though the stray-dog issue needed to be addressed. Under no circumstances should the dogs be released back onto the streets after being 'captured, sterilized, dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023', as per the detailed order uploaded on the SC website on Wednesday. Ordering immediate start of both exercises — that of rounding up the dogs, and the creation of infrastructure such as shelters and medical facilities — the order says these 'shall be undertaken simultaneously'. 'We do not want to hear about even a semblance of lethargy from the concerned authorities on the pre-text of awaiting the creation of shelters / pounds,' the order, however, adds. It warns authorities of strict action otherwise. 'The dog shelters/pounds should have sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize stray dogs and also for looking after the stray dogs who would be detained,' it adds. The two-judge bench took suo motu notice of the stray dog issue — citing a rise in cases of dog bites — and passed orders covering "all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts".
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Changing track on pollution
The Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to halt coercive action against owners of so-called end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) is more than just a procedural breather: It's a much-needed shift away from an unscientific, punitive approach that has bothered motorists for nearly a decade. The court has agreed to revisit its own 2018 order, which upheld the National Green Tribunal's 2014 directive banning diesel vehicles over 10 years old and petrol vehicles over 15 from the roads in the National Capital Region. In doing so, it has given space to discuss a valid argument: Emissions, rather than age, should be the yardstick of a vehicle's roadworthiness. There is no data-based evidence proving that every diesel vehicle over 10 years old is uniformly more polluting than a newer one. (Hindustan Times) On paper, the logic of the original ban appeared to be straightforward — older vehicles are presumed to pollute more. But such a presumption is a poor substitute for scientific rigour. There is no data-based evidence proving that every diesel vehicle over 10 years old is uniformly more polluting than a newer one. In fact, many such vehicles have low annual mileage, are well maintained, and meet pollution under control (PUC) norms. A vintage car that is taken out a few times a year may be cleaner over its lifetime than a modern SUV driven daily through Delhi's gridlock. The age-based ban is a blunt approach — easy to enforce, but scientifically questionable. The broader point is that Delhi's pollution crisis will not be solved through piecemeal measures. Targeting motorists while leaving far more damaging sources — industrial emissions, construction dust, biomass burning — largely untouched is selective enforcement. Such bans also disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income citizens for whom replacing a vehicle is a financial burden. They also ignore the environmental cost of scrapping and manufacturing — processes that consume vast energy resources. If the aim is cleaner air, the route must be a comprehensive, sector-wide strategy that marries technology with policy. Real-world emissions monitoring, expansion of clean public transport, mandatory retrofitting of high emitters, and investment in walkable and cyclable infrastructure must form the core. The role of the State is to create systems that are proactive, consistent, and rooted in science. The Supreme Court has now opened the door to establishing a more rational framework — one that focuses on pollution vehicles, not their birthdays. If the government can seize this moment to craft a broad-spectrum, evidence-based plan, Delhi could finally take a step towards solving its air crisis.
