Dharmasthala Burial Case: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Media Gag Order, Asks Party To Approach High Court

The Supreme Court today (July 23) refused to entertain a challenge to an ex-parte gag order restraining media 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

The counsel for the petitioner Third Eye YouTube channel mentioned the matter before the bench led by CJI BR Gavai. 

He stressed, "This is against an ex parte gag order against 390 media houses. It was passed in 3 hours, stating pls take down 9,000 links and 9,000 stories. This is in the backdrop of SIT made by Karnataka state with DIG officers - it states it will be potentially defamatory and hence takedown."

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi refused to consider the matter directly at the Apex Court. 

The CJI asked the counsel to first approach the High Court as "we cannot discourage the High Courts". 

The Bengaluru Court passed the order on July 18 in a suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade. The Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge(X), Bangalore issued an injunction order restraining the publishing, circulating, forwarding, uploading, transmitting and telecasting any defamatory content and information against Harshendra, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmastala, either in digital media, including YouTube channels, all social media, or print media of any kind, until the next hearing.

The Court also passed a "John Doe" order directing to delete/de-index all the defamatory contents and information against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmastala.

What Is The Plea Against The Ex Parte Gag Order? 

The case in issue arises out of registration of an FIR based on the complaint of a sanitation worker, who claimed that he was instructed to bury the bodies of women and children between 1995 and 2014 in Dharmasthala village.

The petitioner - Third Eye YouTube channel - claims that the Bengaluru Court order was obtained through a "calculated abuse of judicial process" and "material misrepresentation" by plaintiffs, including Harshendra Kumar D (the brother of Dharmasthala temple Dharmadhikari).

It is further asserted that the impugned order directly obstructs a high-level state investigation into allegations of mass burial and serious crimes linked to the Dharmasthala temple. "It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and press", the plea states.

The petitioner claims that the plaintiffs misrepresented before the Bengaluru court that the FIR in the mass burials case had "no allegation against the plaintiff, his family members or any of the institutions". It highlights that the FIR incorporated the two complaints, which implicated the temple administration and named the plaintiffs.

It further points out that the plaintiffs mentioned 8842 specific URLs for deletion, but the Bengaluru court passed a "sweeping gag order" and mandatory deletion directive merely hours after the plaint was filed.

Case Details : Third Eye YouTube Channel v. Sri Harshendra Kumar D & Ors.