Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Maintainability Of YouTube Channel's Plea Against 'Gag Order' In Dharmasthala Burial Case

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 29) reserved orders on the maintainability of a plea filed by a YouTube Channel challenging an ex-parte interim order restraining media platforms from publishing any "defamatory content" against family running the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple and the temple in relation to Dharmasthala Burial case.

After hearing the parties for some time Justice M Nagaprasanna orally said, "Heard, Reserved. We will pass orders on maintainability of the petition".

The court further permitted the parties to file their written submissions by tomorrow and said, "We will try to pronounce the order on Friday on the issue of maintainability of the petition". 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.

During the hearing Senior advocate Uday Holla appearing for the respondent Harshendra Kumar D (the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade) submitted that it was not as if an ex-parte order cannot be granted in the case and questioned the maintainability of the channel's plea.  Harshendra is the plaintiff before the trial court. 

Holla said, "Petitioner is defendant in the trial court and order is against him. When you come under Article 226, 227 your hands must not be tainted. A person's conduct before and after coming is to be looked into". 

The court then orally said, "We will give you options (to) go to concerned court, and we direct the court to hear on day-to-day basis and decide. Or go before appellate court". 

At this stage advocate A Velan appearing for the Channel submitted, "In that circumstance court may set aside the order and direct trial court to pass an order in time bound manner".

In the previous hearing Velan had submitted that over 300 media outlets and URL links are to be blocked by the sessions court's order; he had further said that the injunction order violates the petitioner's "part III rights" wherein the "Entire media fraternity has been restrained". 

Meanwhile today, Holla submitted that other defendant media entities have already approached trial court and arguments are ongoing.

At this stage the high court orally asked the petitioner's counsel, "Why are you violating the trial court order by opening channel after channels when order of injunction is there?"

To this Velan said that this was not a lis between two persons, but a matter which has "vital societal ramifications".

Referring to the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial court Velan submitted that the trial court did not peruse the facts.

"How was it possible to peruse over 8,000 URL links?" Velan emphasized. 

At this stage the high court orally said, "If we direct the trial court to peruse them it will take 2 years". 

Holla submitted that the trial court had directed only to remove defamatory content. To this court queried that the content would be termed defamatory according to whom. Holla then said that the court is the "right minded person" to adjudge defamatory content.

Meanwhile Velan said, "I have a right to publish report based on public documents. If they are going to decide what is defamatory then where is investigative journalism". 

Holla however at this stage asked the court to look at the conduct of the party and pointed out, "Half hour back I am told, a video is published which is absolutely defamatory". 

The high court thereafter reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the channel's plea. 

Background

For context, a Bengaluru court had, in an ex parte interim order on July 18, 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 Channel 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.