Bengaluru Court: Karnataka Bank BTV News Defamation Judgment Issued

• A Bengaluru court ordered BTV News to pay ₹1 lakh in damages to Karnataka Bank for defamation.
• The news channel must also broadcast an apology and is permanently restrained from publishing further defamatory statements related to the dispute.
• The defamation stemmed from reports following the resignation of Karnataka Bank's MD & CEO, Srikrishnan Hari Hara Sarma, in June 2025.
• The court found BTV News broadcast allegations without verifying information from credible sources and failed to follow Press Council of India norms.
• The dispute involved an audit finding that the former MD had incurred ₹1.16 crore in expenses beyond his delegated powers, which the bank had disclosed to the NSE.

The court's decision underscores the imperative for media houses to adhere to stringent journalistic standards, particularly when reporting on corporate entities.

A Bengaluru court has issued a significant ruling in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs BTV, directing Kannada news channel BTV News to pay ₹1 lakh in damages to Karnataka Bank Limited. This judgment, delivered on October 1, found the channel liable for broadcasting defamatory statements concerning the bank. The court's decision underscores the imperative for media houses to adhere to stringent journalistic standards, particularly when reporting on corporate entities.

Beyond the monetary compensation, the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge RY Shashidhara also mandated that the Bengaluru defamation news channel broadcast a public apology to Karnataka Bank. Furthermore, the court imposed a permanent injunction, prohibiting BTV News from publishing any future defamatory statements against the bank or its officials related to the specific dispute that led to this legal action. This comprehensive relief, encompassing defamation damages injunction, highlights the court's firm stance against unverified reporting.

The dispute originated following the resignation of Karnataka Bank's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Srikrishnan Hari Hara Sarma, on June 29, 2025. The news channel's defamatory broadcasts were made in the wake of this high-profile departure. Prior to Sarma's resignation, an internal audit for the financial year 2024-25 had uncovered that he had incurred expenditures totaling ₹1.16 crore, which included consultant fees and other revenue expenses, exceeding his delegated financial authority.

These audit findings were subsequently reviewed by the bank's board, which recommended the recovery of the identified amount. The bank had formally communicated these developments to the National Stock Exchange on May 14, 2025, before Sarma tendered his resignation, citing personal reasons. It was in this context that BTV News aired its reports, which the court later deemed defamatory.

In its ruling, the court critically assessed the journalistic practices employed by BTV News. The judgment explicitly stated that the channel had broadcast the allegations without undertaking due diligence to verify the information from credible sources. This failure to corroborate facts was a central point in the court's determination of defamation.

The court further emphasized that the defendant had not adhered to the established norms of journalistic conduct issued by the Press Council of India. It concluded that BTV News failed to follow fundamental principles and ethics while publishing statements against the plaintiff bank, thereby establishing a clear breach of media responsibility in this Karnataka Bank BTV News defamation judgment.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for media organizations across India regarding the strict adherence required for journalistic ethics and the thorough verification of facts. The ruling reinforces that reporting on corporate governance issues demands meticulous accuracy to avoid significant legal repercussions, including liability for defamation damages and injunctive relief. For media houses, it underscores the potential costs, both financial and reputational, of failing to meet professional standards.

Conversely, for corporate entities, this verdict provides a strong precedent. It demonstrates that companies have a viable recourse to seek redress against unverified and defamatory media reports, offering a mechanism to protect their reputation and ensure accountability from news outlets. The court's emphasis on Press Council of India norms highlights the regulatory framework that underpins responsible journalistic conduct in India.

Lawyers advising media houses should note this judgment reinforces the imperative for strict adherence to journalistic ethics and verification of facts to avoid defamation liability, especially when reporting on corporate governance issues. For corporate clients, it provides a precedent for seeking damages and injunctive relief against unverified, defamatory media reports.

Source: Original reporting via court documents and news reports