'Entire Media Fraternity Restrained': YouTube Channel Moves Karnataka HC Against 'Gag Order' In Dharmasthala Burial Case

A YouTube Channel has moved the Karnataka High Court on Friday (July 25), challenging the trial court's ex parte interim order restraining various media platforms from publishing any "defamatory content" against the family running the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala(Karnataka) and also the temple in relation to the "Dharmasthala Burial" case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna orally said that the matter has to be placed before the appropriate court. The court was hearing a plea by a digital media platform known as 'Kudla Rampage', represented by its editor-in-chief, challenging the trial court's July 18 order.

Meanwhile, Advocate A Velan, appearing for the petitioner, said that over 300 media outlets and URL links are to be blocked by the sessions court's order. 

The court however said, "A detailed injunction order is passed so it has to go before the jurisdiction court". 

Velan, meanwhile, argued that the interim injunction order violates the petitioner's "part III rights".

"Entire media fraternity has been restrained," he emphasized.

The court, however, said that the sessions court's order is appealable and it has to go before the jurisdictional court. It said to Velan, "I will hear you but convince me on the part of jurisdiction of this court to hear the matter...What is this order blatantly blocking?"

Counsel said that some of the defendants have filed an application for vacation of stay before the trial court, and the same is posted for hearing on July 28. 

The court at this stage said to Velan, "You also can file the application like others". Velan however, said that he shall convince the court on the issue of jurisdiction.

After hearing the matter for some time, the high court adjourned the hearing to July 29 at 2.30 pm.

Background

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea by the Third Eye YouTube channel challenging the gag order, asking the party to first approach the high court.

For context, a Bengaluru court had, in an ex parte interim order, restrained various media houses and YouTube channels from publishing, circulating and telecasting any "defamatory content" and information against Harshendra Kumar D–brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, his family members, institutions run by the family and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala.

In the present matter, the petitioner, in its plea before the high court, claims that the order is a flagrant violation of the Petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. "It is a textbook example of an unconstitutional prior restraint that creates a severe and pervasive 'chiling effect" on public interest journalism, effectively silencing any and all scrutiny of powerful institutions," the plea claims.

The plea states that the petitioner is a digital media platform with a significant viewership, primarily on YouTube.

The plea claims that the order fails to record cogent reasons for dispensing with notice in a case of this constitutional magnitude, renders the order procedurally void.

It states that the use of the undefined and subjective term "defamatory content," in the order along with indiscriminate targeting of nearly nine thousand URLs without any individualized judicial assessment, makes compliance impossible. 

The plea seeks quashing of the trial court's order declaring it to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of fundamental rights, passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, procedurally flawed.

It seeks a restraint on the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in view of the trial court's order. It further seeks a declaration that a "blanket gag order against media reporting on a registered FIR and a subsequent state-level SIT investigation", bears the hallmarks of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and is liable to be scrutinized as such. 

The trial court in its interim order has restrained the various entities from publishing any allegedly defamatory content in either print, digital or social media till the next hearing on August 5.