Refusing to Restrain a Covert Recording Risks Irreparable Privacy Harm, Rules Karnataka High Court in A. Manjunath v. Power Smart Media Pvt. Ltd.
Case: A. Manjunath v. Power Smart Media Private Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2026
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Coram: K.V. Aravind
Court Observation
“breach of privacy” and “irreparable damage and hardship”
Summary
The Karnataka High Court restrained Power Smart Media Private Limited, which operates Power TV, its Managing Director Rakesh Sanjeeva Shetty and other respondents from telecasting or circulating an alleged covert sting recording of former Magadi MLA A. Manjunath, citing the risk of privacy violation. The interim order restrains the respondents from directly or indirectly disseminating the impugned material through any medium, and remains in force until the next hearing.
The Court passed the interim order while hearing Manjunath’s plea challenging a trial court’s refusal to grant an ex parte injunction against publication of the alleged recording. The Court noted that the trial court had considered the requirements for an injunction but ultimately failed to restrain publication, and held that such refusal could cause irreversible harm that could not be compensated.
Key Holdings
- Where a trial court’s refusal to restrain publication of an alleged private recording could lead to a breach of privacy, an interim restraint is justified to prevent irreversible harm.
- Harm to privacy and reputation from circulation of an alleged covert recording cannot be compensated later in monetary terms, which weighs in favour of restraint until the next hearing.
- The interim restraint records no finding on what the recording contains or on the respondents’ defence, and notice has been issued to the respondents.
Background
According to the plaint, Shetty stated during a Power TV programme on 16 October 2026 that he possessed a “sting video” of Manjunath, allegedly recorded in March 2023. Manjunath claimed that he had been covertly recorded in a private setting without his knowledge or consent and was unaware of the recording until the broadcast. Manjunath approached the High Court after the vacation court declined to grant an ad-interim restraint, despite observing that his apprehension could not be considered wholly speculative. Manjunath did not press his separate application seeking removal of the existing broadcast from YouTube and Facebook.
Related Articles
- Supreme Court: Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation of a Spouse Is Admissible Evidence in Matrimonial Cases
- Circulation of Modi-Adani Video Restrained Till 31 January 2027, Rules Calcutta High Court
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
