The Karnataka High Court has recently levied a fine of ₹10 lakh on The New Indian Express for its publication concerning an investigation into allegations of infidelity against a senior judicial officer.

Subsequently, the High Court dropped the charges against the judge in question.

In his ruling, Justice NS Sanjay Gowda emphasized that the articles of charge against the judge should not have been disclosed, and the identities of the individuals alleged to have been involved in an improper relationship should not have been publicized, particularly considering that neither party had been given an opportunity to present their side of the matter.

"The charges, when read in isolation, would lead to the inference that it was an established fact that they were in an improper relationship. This would infringe upon their privacy and would have a telling effect on their character and they would, in effect, be condemned unheard. In the event and in the future, if similar complaints of infidelity are received and an inquiry is undertaken, care should be taken to ensure the names of the persons involved in are not mentioned," the order stated.

The petitioner before the High Court, a retired senior judicial officer, faced accusations of engaging in illicit relationships with staff members and committing financial impropriety. Following an inquiry, six charges were leveled against him. However, according to the report by the inquiring authority, only four of these charges were substantiated. Despite this, an Administrative Committee appointed to investigate these allegations declined to accept the report.

The New Indian Express published the report from the inquiring authority, yet failed to mention that the Administrative Committee or the High Court did not accept the findings of the report.

A day after the article was published, the issue was brought before a full court session of the High Court, which subsequently dismissed the charges against the judge. The Court criticized The New Indian Express for its irresponsible conduct, stating that the newspaper had acted in a manner inconsistent with the standards expected of a responsible publication. Furthermore, the Court condemned the behavior of both the reporters and editors involved in the matter, deeming it unacceptable.

It was observed that approximately six months prior to the publication of the article in question, a decision had already been made not to accept the report against the judicial officer. However, this significant detail was entirely absent from the article.

The Court emphasized that the newspaper couldn't evade its responsibility by claiming ignorance of the Administrative Committee's decision. It asserted that a responsible publication like The New Indian Express should have refrained from publishing an article with incomplete facts, especially considering the sensitive nature of the matter.

As a consequence, the Court imposed the costs on the owner of the newspaper, stipulating that they be remitted to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a two-month period. Additionally, the Court instructed the High Court to initiate an investigation to ascertain how the inquiry report had been leaked to the newspaper.