When a news channel owner becomes the news

At around 5.00 am on 16 September, Kerala Police personnel entered the headquarters of Malayalam news channel Reporter TV in Kalamassery on the outskirts of Kochi. The special investigation team was looking for owner Anto Augustine and material relating to violations surrounding the visit of Lionel Messi and the Argentina football team to Kerala — an event that failed to take place.

Simultaneous searches were conducted at properties linked to Augustine and his brothers, Roji and Josekutty, in Kochi and their native Wayanad. The Reporter Broadcasting Company, which runs Reporter TV, was associated with the event, projected as a major sporting spectacle during the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government.

Home minister Ramesh Chennithala said the action followed a criminal case registered on the basis of the sports secretary’s report and Augustine’s alleged failure to comply with repeated SIT summons.

The channel’s management claimed police entered their newsroom, disrupted its functioning and seized the phones of journalists on duty. Augustine, a regular participant in prime-time discussions, described it as an attack on press freedom. Former CM Vijayan and other senior CPI(M) leaders concurred. The police denied interfering with the channel’s news operations, maintaining that the search was directed at securing evidence.

Defending the investigation, chief minister V.D. Satheesan drew a distinction between a journalist hounded for fearless journalism and a media proprietor investigated for financial fraud. The action, he pointed out, was not because the news coverage of Reporter TV was unfavourable to the government. The channel was associated with the failed Messi event and the company was named in the case.

The controversy has exposed an old weakness: police action involving media organisations is often judged according to who is in power and who is being investigated.

The day after the raid, Augustine was arrested by the excise department after foreign liquor, IMFL and illegally brewed local liquor was seized from his residential premises in Wayanad. The excise department registered a case under the provisions of the Abkari Act. Augustine denied consuming or possessing liquor and disputed his connection with the property. He was subsequently granted conditional bail by the Kerala High Court.

The Wayanad property is also being investigated. Augustine maintains that the palatial house belongs to his mother-in-law. According to the investigation, the property had been pledged to a nationalised bank for Rs 13 crore. As the loan default increased, the bank auctioned it under the 2002 SARFAESI Act that empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interests and recover NPAs without court intervention.

Augustine’s mother-in-law was the sole bidder and acquired it for about Rs 2 crore. The SIT is examining whether these transactions amount to cheating and whether any bank officials were involved.

A separate criminal case concerns Augustine’s public claim that he was approached with documents alleging that Satheesan had contracted a second marriage in Karnataka in 2012 without annulling his first marriage. Reporter TV examined the material but did not run the story.

The police case alleges that the documents were forged and that Augustine and two unidentified persons were involved in a conspiracy to defame the chief minister. If he believed the marriage certificate was inauthentic, why did he not submit it to authorities for investigation?

Augustine and his brothers have been embroiled in other cases. In 2016, Anto and Josekutty were arrested over Mango Phone, which they promoted as an Indian alternative to Apple’s iPhone. Forged property documents were allegedly used to obtain bank finance against property that had already been pledged. The business — allegedly importing and rebranding cheap Chinese phones — eventually collapsed.

While a police report referred to multiple complaints from Kerala and Karnataka, the most consequential controversy before the family’s entry into television was the Muttil tree-felling case.

In late 2020-early 2021, 41 rosewood trees were felled (two over 500 years old) and more than 204 cubic metres of timber, valued at about Rs 8 crore, were taken from Muttil in south Wayanad. The investigation subsequently produced 36 chargesheets against the Augustine brothers (and others) and examined the (mis)use of the revenue department order as well as the role of officials and private parties in continuing to fell protected trees after the order was withdrawn.

A timber dealer alleged that the Augustine brothers collected Rs 1.4 crore as an advance and supplied 54 pieces of timber obtained from illegally felled trees. The high court later quashed the criminal-breach-of-trust charge but sustained the cheating allegation.

It was while the Muttil cases were pending that the Augustine family entered media.

Reporter TV, originally launched in 2011, was relaunched in 2023. Anto became managing director and managing editor, while his other brothers assumed senior positions. With one of the principal accused in the Muttil controversy now heading a news organisation, Reporter TV began defending the Augustine brothers and countering criticism. Former Reporter TV editor M.P. Basheer, who worked there before the brothers bought it from M.V. Nikesh Kumar, describes it as a problem of editorial decisions being coloured by proprietorial interests.

The Messi case grabbed national headlines. Argentina’s national team was expected to play in Kochi and two other locations. The criminal case alleges that fabricated agreements with the Argentina Football Association were used in a conspiracy that induced the government to hand over the state-owned Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium. Augustine and Reporter Broadcasting Company face allegations including cheating, dishonest inducement, personation and criminal conspiracy.

State GST investigators have quantified an alleged tax liability of Rs 25.78 crore. They have questioned borrowings of Rs 213+ crore by a company with a paid-up capital of Rs 10 lakh, and Rs 234.31+ crore in bank credits remaining unreconciled with declared GST figures. The company claimed expenditure of Rs 70+ crore on renovations and related work — which a government engineering assessment valued at around Rs 8.42 crore. Foreign remittances and input tax claims are also being scrutinised.

Augustine maintains that the government approached him and officials were involved. The SIT is therefore also examining whether former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan or former sports minister V. Abdurahiman are guilty of any offences in connection with the event that never happened.

Meanwhile, the debate over ‘press freedom’ rages on. Joseph C. Mathew, political analyst and former adviser to the late chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan, put the ownership issue bluntly: “The sanctity of Reporter TV as a media institution has been destroyed by those sitting at the top. This is not confined to Kerala.”

Pramod Raman, editor of MediaOne, said: “Press freedom protects journalism and editorial independence; it does not provide personal immunity to a media proprietor facing criminal investigation.”

That distinction is central to the present controversy. A newsroom should not be casually searched. Journalists’ sources and working material deserve protection. Any allegation that police interfered with editorial operations must be examined independently, based on facts.

But a criminal investigation involving a media proprietor or his company cannot automatically become an attack on journalism.

The Messi case concerns contracts, taxes, government property. The Muttil cases concern the illegal felling of timber. The excise case concerns the unlawful possession of liquor. The Satheesan case concerns allegedly forged documents. None of these are journalistic acts.

For the Augustine brothers, television may have become their most powerful platform. The investigations will determine whether it was also expected to become their shield.