The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea challenging an ex-parte injunction order that restrained over 390 media platforms from publishing or disseminating any allegedly defamatory content concerning the family associated with the Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala, and the institution itself. The restraint order was passed by a Bengaluru civil court in connection with the controversial "Dharmasthala Burial" case.
The petition was brought before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, by counsel representing the petitioner, Third Eye, a YouTube-based media outlet. It was argued that the impugned order, which directed the takedown of nearly 9,000 URLs within a few hours of the suit being filed, amounted to an arbitrary gag on the press and was passed without hearing any of the affected parties.
The bench, however, declined to directly intervene and advised the petitioner to first approach the High Court. “We cannot discourage the jurisdiction of the High Courts,” the CJI observed, refusing to entertain the matter under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The underlying suit had been filed by Harshendra Kumar D., the brother of Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, a prominent religious figure associated with the Dharmasthala temple. On July 18, a judge of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (Bangalore) issued an interim injunction prohibiting the dissemination of any content, across digital platforms, including YouTube and social media, as well as in print or broadcast media, that could be defamatory to Harshendra, his family, associated institutions, or the temple.
Additionally, a John Doe injunction was issued, directing the deletion and de-indexing of all such content across online platforms, despite the broad scope of the URLs cited and the ex-parte nature of the order.
The plea filed before the Apex Court alleged that the injunction was secured by suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. According to the petitioner, the FIR that triggered the controversy stemmed from a complaint lodged by a sanitation worker who claimed to have buried bodies of women and children between 1995 and 2014 in the Dharmasthala region under alleged instructions. It was submitted that the complainant had specifically named members of the temple administration and related institutions, contrary to the plaintiff's claims before the lower court that there were no allegations against them.
The petition described the ex-parte order as a disproportionate and preemptive curb on press freedom, particularly when a Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising senior police officials, was actively probing the allegations. It warned that the gag order could obstruct legitimate public discourse and impede the course of a high-level criminal investigation.
The case now remains pending before the Karnataka High Court, where the petitioner is expected to seek further legal remedy.
Picture Source :