Dharmasthala Burial Case | Bengaluru Court Issues Fresh 'Gag Order' Restraining Media Reporting Against Temple Admin

A civil court in Bengaluru has re-issued a fresh interim injunction restraining certain media houses from publishing defamatory content against the temple administration or the family in relation to the Dharmasthala burial cases.

The city civil court said “I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w section 151 of C.P.C is partly allowed. Defendants (excluding defendant Nos.22, 27, 28, 34, 37, 57, 60, 61, 90, 91, 92, 100, 101, 109, 153, 157, 210, 214, 217, 218, 241, 264, 275, 278, 280. 286, 287, 295, 299, 301, 306, 312, 316, 317, 319, 320, 327, 330, 331 against whom the plaintiff is not pressing the suit and defendant Nos.6, 17, 20, 26, 29 and 311 against whom summons / notice is yet to be served), their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees or any person claiming through or under them are here by directed by way of Mandatory injunction not to transmit/telecast the video's / URLs mentioned/specified in the schedule of the application till the disposal of the suit.”

It may be noted that The Karnataka High Court on August 1 quashed the ex-parte gag order passed against the YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage' in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.

The High Court order came after a local court in Bengaluru gagged various media houses and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" against plaintiff-Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, his family members, institutions run by the family and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala, following which the channel approached the High Court.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the trial court order did not mention any alleged defamatory content based on which it was passed, adding that the order granted a "mandatory sweeping injunction".

The High Court further said that the order was so broad that it "threatens" any voice against Harshendra Kumar D, the family or even the place Dharmasthala. Setting aside the injunction as against YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage', the High Court asked the trial court to decide the matter afresh.

After the High Court's remand, the trial judge who passed the initial injunction recused from hearing, citing that he had studied in a law school run by the temple family. The matter was therefore shifted to another Civil Court.

By order dated August 6, the trial court before whom the matter was transferred refused to extend the interim order.

Following the High Court order in the Kudla Rampage case, the plaintiff had challenged it in the Supreme Court which had on August 8, directed the Bengaluru Civil Court to decide within two weeks from the next date of hearing an application filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of the Dharmasthala Temple Dharmadhikari, seeking to restrain media houses from publishing defamatory content against the temple administration or the family in relation to the Dharmasthala burial cases.

The Court was dealing with the plea filed by Harshendra Kumar D (who is also the Secretary of the Temple Administration), challenging the Karnataka High Court's order which lifted the restraint order on a YouTube channel, by directing the trial court to decide the matter in a time-bound manner.