Kerala High Court Questions Actor Dileep on Media Reporting Petition
On Monday, the Kerala High Court scrutinized actor Dileep’s claims regarding the impact of media coverage on the 2017 actress assault case, in which he was implicated as an accused. The case, P Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala & Ors., saw Dileep approaching the court in 2022. He alleged that media outlets, including Reporter TV, breached restrictions on reporting the case.
While Dileep’s plea was under consideration, he was acquitted by the trial court in December 2025, having previously been accused of conspiracy in the crime. His petition raised issues about being subjected to a media trial, urging the High Court to restrict media reports until the trial concluded.
Justice Jobin Sebastian expressed doubts about Dileep’s claims of rights violations. The judge pointed out that criminal charges had been filed against the former CEO of Reporter TV, MV Nikesh Kumar, and other media outlets for allegedly publishing confidential information related to the trial. However, Justice Sebastian questioned, “What is the grievance of the petitioner (Dileep) here?”
Justice Sebastian clarified that while the law prohibits revealing the victim’s identity in sexual offense cases, it does not extend the same protection to accused individuals. The judge stated, “If the news report only says the name of the accused stating he has been arrested for rape, how can it be a criminal offense? Bonafide reporting of the details of trial, how can it be an offense?”
The court suggested that if media gag orders from the trial court had been violated, contempt of court proceedings should have been initiated at the trial court level. Justice Sebastian inquired, “How will publishing the trial details affect you (Dileep)? …Why can’t you approach the trial court with a contempt petition… That is the remedy.”
More Read
Additionally, the court criticized the State for its delay in concluding the 2022 cybercrime investigations regarding the unauthorized publication of confidential trial information. The court had previously instructed the police to expedite this investigation. Observing non-compliance with this directive, the court requested a statement from the Public Prosecutor on the investigation’s current status.
The court directed, “The Public Prosecutor is directed to verify why the order of this Court (to fast track the probe and complete it within a time frame) has not been complied with so far. Post after one month.” Justice Sebastian warned that contempt of court proceedings might be initiated if the investigation is not completed promptly, advising the state’s counsel to relay the urgency.
Representing Dileep were Senior Counsel T Krishnanunni, along with advocates Philip T Varghese, Thomas T Varghese, Achu Shubha Abraham, Litha VT, Monisha KR, and Nitya R. The hearing on Dileep’s allegations of illegal publication of in-camera trial proceedings continues in the Kerala High Court.
