Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Karmikara Vedike (R) vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
WP No. 7953 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7953 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 7957 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 7953/2025
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE (R)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI PRADEEP NAIK
SON OF THIMMANAIK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.7, MODI HOSPITAL COMPLEX
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 086.
by NAGAVENI
Location: High
...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI A.VELAN, A/W.,
SRIYUTHS SUSHANTH V. A., DHEERAJ S. J.,
VISHWAS N. B., AND DIVIN GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
WP No. 7953 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE, WEST DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION
RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM PREVENTING OR
PROHIBITING THE PETITIONER AND MEMBERS OF KARNATAKA
KARMIKARA VEDIKE (R) FROM CONDUCTING PEACEFUL
PROTESTS REGARDING THE JUSTICE FOR SOWJANYA
MOVEMENT AT FREEDOM PARK, BENGALURU, ON THE BASIS
OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. NO. 19382 OF 2023.
IN WP NO. 7957/2025
BETWEEN:
NATIVE EMPOWERING AND EQUIPPING
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
WP No. 7953 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025
TEAM FOR HOPE AND INTERACTION (R)
(NEETHI TRUST)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT
SRI JAYANTH T. K.,
SON OF THANGAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1/123
KALAMETHADKA MANE
ICCHILAMPAADI GRAMA AND ANCHE
KADABA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 221.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.VELAN, A/W., SRIYUTHS SUSHANTH
V. A., DHEERAJ S. J., VISHWAS N. B., AND
DIVIN GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 574 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 266 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 BEARING NO. TOKDB-
MAG0MAG/35/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
WP No. 7953 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Both these petitions are preferred by different petitioners
for the same cause of action, for holding a peaceful protest.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri A Velan along with
Sriyuths Sushanth V A, Dheeraj S J., Vishwas N.B. and Divin
Gowda, learned counsels appearing for petitioners in both
these cases and the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of obtaining in
Writ Petition No.7957 of 2025 are noticed.
4. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass at this
juncture. The petitioner-Trust registered in the year 2015 is
said to now taken up the cause of justice for one Soujanya. In
furtherance thereof, for conduct of a peaceful protest on
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
11-03-2025 to demand for an Acquittal Review Committee and
to take action against the police officers involved in the
investigation, sought permission from the hands of the
jurisdictional police to hold such protest. The representation to
the Tahsildar, Kadaba Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, reads as
follows:
"Ref No.: 26/DH-2025 Date: 11.03.2025
jUÉ,
vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï
PÀqÀ§ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï
ದ ಣ ಕನ ಡ ೆ
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃÉ,
ಷಯ: ದ ಣ ಕನ ಡ ೆ ೆಳಂಗ ೕ ಾ ೆ .ಸಂ ೆ 250/2012
ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಕು%ತು 'ೋ)* +,ೇ*ಶನದಂ.ೆ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ
3ೌಜನ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ 'ೊ ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಆ:;<ೆ= %ವ? PÀ@A
ರಚCೆ Dಾ vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜ ಅE'ಾ%ಗಳ ರುದF ಸೂಕ ಕ"ಮ'ೆG Hಾಗೂ ಈ
ಪ"ಕರಣವನು SIT ತ+ ೆ2ೆ ಆಗ"JK ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCಾ RರವS2ೆ2ೆ
ಅನುಮO 'ೋ%.
RೕಲGಂಡ ಷಯ'ೆG ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ ೆಳಂಗ .ಾಲೂಕು ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ
Uಾಂಗಳ +VಾK W। ಚಂದಪX 2ೌಡ Hಾಗೂ ಕುಸುDಾವO ಅವರ ಎರಡCೇ ಪZO" ಕುDಾ%
3ೌಜನ ಳ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ 'ೊ ೆ2ೆ ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ WCಾಂಕ 10.10.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀÛAUÀr
¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 250/2012 UÉ ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ
ಮHೇ[ \ೆA] Oಮ^ೋ ಮತು ತಂಡದವ^ಾದ CಾವZ ಈ2ಾಗ ೇ ಹಲವZ ಕ_ೆ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ
2ಾ"ಮದ 3ೌಜನ ಳ Cಾ ಯ'ಾG` Hೋ^ಾಟ DಾಡುO,ೆaೕVೆ. 3ೌಜನ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ 'ೊ ೆ
ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಬ2ೆb Cಾ ಯ'ಾG` ಆಗ"Jಸಲು ಮತು ಆ^ೋc ಪ.ೆdಾಗ,ೇ ಇರುವZದರ ರುದF
ಧf+ ಎತಲು ಮತು ಈ ಪ"ಕರಣದ ವ ವK1ತ ಸಂಚು ರೂcK ಆ^ೋcಗಳ ಪರVಾ` +ಂತ
ಅE'ಾ%ಗಳ ರುದF ತ+ ೆ2ಾ` 'ೋ)* +,ೇ*ಶನದಂ.ೆ ಅ:]ಟ= %ವ? ಕ@A ರಚCೆ
Dಾಡಲು ಅಂ.ೆgೕ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ ಆ`ರುವಂತ ಅಸಹಜ 3ಾವZಗಳ ತ+ ೆ2ೆ ಕಡಬ
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
.ಾಲೂಕು ಕ7ೇ% ಮುಂhಾಗದ ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCೆ ನ_ೆಸಲು ಉ,ೆaೕjK,ೆaೕVೆ. ಈ
JCೆ ೆಯ , Cಾ ಯ'ಾG` 3ಾವ*ಜ+ಕರ ಮನ ಯನು ಸ'ಾ*ರ'ೆG ಮತು ಅE'ಾ%ಗk2ೆ
ಒ.ಾmಸುವ ಸಲುVಾ` WCಾಂಕ: 15.03.2025 ರಂದು ೆk2ೆb 10.00 %ಂದ ಮnಾ ಹ 12
ಗಂ<ೆಯವ^ೆ2ೆ ಸುಬ"ಹoಣ - ಕಡಬ ರ3ೆಯ ಮ,ಾ*ಳWಂದ ಕಡಬ .ಾಲೂಕು ಕ7ೇ%
ಮುಂhಾಗದವ^ೆ2ೆ \ಾಂOಯುತ ಪ"OಭಟCಾ RರವS2ೆ Hಾಗೂ ಕಡಬ .ಾಲೂಕ ಕ7ೇ%
ಮುಂhಾಗದ ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCೆ ನ_ೆಸಲು ಅನುಮO ಮತು Hೋ^ಾಟ2ಾರ%2ೆ ಸೂಕ ರp ೆ
ಒದ`K'ೊಳq ೇ'ಾ` 'ೋರು.ೇVೆ.
ವಂದCೆಗrೆs ಂW2ೆ,
Ewà vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
dAiÀÄAvï n,PÉ
^ಾtಾ ಧ pರು
¤Ãw vÀAqÀ."
The representation is clear that it is a protest seeking
Acquittal Review Committee for the death of one Soujanya in
the year 2012. The Tahsildar of Kadaba Taluk grants
permission to hold the protest in terms of his order dated
14-3-2025. After the grant of permission, it transpires that
objection is filed by an Advocate and on the said objection, the
permission so granted is withdrawn on the next day, by
issuance of an endorsement on 15-03-25. It is this action of
withdrawal of the endorsement that has driven the petitioner to
this Court.
5. The learned counsel Sri A Velan, submits that the right
to protest cannot be stalled by the State by issuing gag orders.
The gag order, in the case at hand, is that the State issues an
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
order that nobody should protest on the issue. Therefore, the
learned counsel submits such orders are contrary to law. He
would further contend that permission is withdrawn on twin
score, one, objections by the Advocate and the other, the order
passed by the coordinate bench in W.P.No.19382 of 2023. The
learned counsel would seek to distinguish the judgment
rendered by the coordinate bench, contending that it would not
become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand.
He would further contend the protest would be peaceful and if
there is any violation of law, the police are at liberty, to take
action, in accordance with law.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah would also submit that if the
protestors would violate the directions issued by the coordinate
Bench in W.P.No.19382 of 2023, they should be reserved
liberty to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, the
issue is permitting the petitioners to protest on an issue that
they are wanting to project in terms of the representation.
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
7. The representation is quoted hereinabove. Permission
was granted, it is withdrawn, owing to the twin fact as
observed hereinabove. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
notice the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in
W.P. 19382 of 2023. The coordinate bench has held as follows:
"The 1st petitioner claiming to be an employee of Sri
Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project (for
short 'SKDRDP') and the 2nd petitioner, a family member
of Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade are
before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the
respondents police to consider their representations dated
05.08.2023 and take suitable action in terms of the
prayer made therein. The petitioners are also seeking
writ of mandamus directing the respondents police and
the State to take action in accordance with law to conduct
investigation in connection with Special C.C.No.203/2016
on the file of the Special Court, City Civil Judge at
Bengaluru; to direct the respondents police to take
suitable action against respondent No.9 for violating the
orders passed by the Courts of law and for having made
reckless, baseless and scandalous allegations against the
judiciary and judges.
2. At the threshold, learned Senior Counsel Sri
Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioners submitted that
prayer (b) has become infructuous in view of the action
taken by the respondents police.
3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that
certain directions were issued by the learned City Civil
Judge in O.S.No.4527/2023, directing respondent No.9
herein and the defendants therein inter alia not to further
transmit the videos specified in the schedule against the
institution, head of the institution and his family members
on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories
prepared or edited by the defendants, as claimed by the
plaintiffs in I.A.No.1/2023 till the next date of hearing;
temporarily injuncting the defendants from
making/telecasting/publishing/circulating/forwarding/uplo
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
ading/ transmitting/ sharing any false, baseless, reckless
allegations against the institution, head of the institution
Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade, and his
family members on the basis of false, fabricated and
concocted stories prepared or edited by defendants, as
claimed by the petitioners in I.A.No.2/2023, injuncting the
defendants therein by an order of temporary injunction
from approaching any media platforms/publishing houses
by making false, baseless, reckless allegations against the
head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veerendra
Heggade or his family members or his institutions or
organizations or Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple,
Dharmasthala by making false, baseless, frivolous,
reckless allegations in the pretext of discussing the case
relating to Spl.CC No.203/2016 on the file of the CBI
Court, Bangalore as claimed by the plaintiffs in
I.A.No.3/2023, till the next date of hearing and further
having regard to the violation of such interim orders
passed by the learned City Civil Judge, contempt
proceedings were initiated before the Hon'ble Division
Bench by some other persons.
4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that
despite all these directions and despite the matter being
considered at the hands of the Hon'ble Divison Bench in
the contempt petition, the reckless conduct of the 9th
respondent continues unabated. In that regard, it is
submitted that I.A.No.4/2024 has been filed by the
petitioners seeking appropriate directions to the
respondents/police not to grant any permission/licence so
as to enable the respondent No.9 to conduct any public
events/function in the name and style of "Justice for
Sowjanya" or by any other name and grant such other
further reliefs as this court may deem fit. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that along with the application a Pen-
drive has been submitted before this Court containing the
reckless speech and statements made by the 9th
respondent against the judiciary in general and the judges
in particular.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. I. Tharanath
Poojary, appearing for the 9th respondent submits that
during the pendency of the contempt petition, this issue
was raised by the petitioners and the same was
considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in CCC
No.304/2020. The 9th respondent tendered an
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
unconditional apology on 11.01.2024 and the Hon'ble
Division Bench accepted the apology and closed the
allegations of contempt of court on that score in terms of
the order dated 05.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel
would therefore submit that the prayer made in
I.A.No.4/2024 need not be considered, having regard to
the fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench has already
accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the 9th
respondent herein.
6. During the course of these proceedings, this
Court had indicated to the 9th respondent that merely by
contending that his right of speech should not be violated
or curtailed, 9th respondent cannot seek to go on making
statement in the public and in the streets, undermining
the dignity of any individual. This Court had indicated to
the 9th respondent that it is open for him to get redressal
in a manner known to law, even if any action on the part
of an individual had in any manner affected the rights of
the 9th respondent or if he seeks to espouse a public
cause, he could take action only in a manner known to
law and he cannot go to the streets and go on making
reckless statement even against private individuals. And
in that regard this Court gave an opportunity to the 9th
respondent to file a statement before this Court saying
that he will not indulge in such activities in future.
However, today learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
9th respondent has filed an affidavit of the 9th respondent
pointing out to the issue regarding the statement made
by the 9th respondent against the judiciary and the judges
and that the Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the
unconditional apology tendered by the 9th respondent, in
its order dated 05.06.2024. Learned Senior Counsel
would submit that 9th respondent has clearly stated in the
affidavit that he will not in future make any such
derogatory statement in respect of the judiciary or the
Hon'ble Judges. However, insofar as the indication given
by this Court on the previous date of hearing, the 9th
respondent is not ready to make any statement regarding
his right to go into the public and make any statement or
derogatory remarks against a private individual.
7. In this background, this Court has heard the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners;
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
the learned Additional Advocate General and this Court
proceeds to consider the case for final disposal.
8. Having regard to the admitted fact that the
agitation in the beginning had commenced on account of
the murder of one Soujanya and a forum known as
"Justice for Soujanaya" was formed and in that regard
certain statements were made in public by many persons
including the 9th respondent. The 1st petitioner being an
employee of SKDRDP and the 2nd petitioner being a
member of the family of Sri Veerendra Heggade,
Dharmadhikari of Shri Dharmasthala Temple are before
this Court seeking certain directions to the respondents
police to take note of the conduct of the 9th respondent
and all such persons, who are said to have organized
public agitations, created platforms and have made public
speeches and statement which has cast a great deal of
anxiety and anguish to the followers of the Sri
Dharmasthala Manjunatha temple and workers of many of
the projects taken up by Sri Veerendra Heggade. Learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
before this Court that the 9th respondent should be
stopped from making such derogatory statements against
an individual who has certain respect in the society. It is
submitted that the 9th respondent cannot claim to have an
absolute right to speech and therefore go before the
public and go on making such derogatory remarks against
a private individuals. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that there cannot be any absolute right that the 9th
respondent can claim to enable him to go on making such
derogatory statements in the open public, even if he is
aggrieved of any action on the part of Dr.Veerendra
Heggade or his family members or of the institution or the
projects taken up by the said individual and his family
members. If at all, the 9th respondent is aggrieved of any
such action, it will be open for him to take action in
accordance with law and by merely stating that he has a
right to speech, he should not be permitted to make
derogatory remarks in open public platforms or to publish
any such derogatory remarks. In that regard, it is
submitted that petitioners are before this Court seeking
suitable directions to the respondent police.
9. A constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P.
(2023) 4 SCC (1) has held that dignity is the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
quintessential quality of personality and a basic
constituent of the rights guaranteed and protected under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Dignity is a part of
the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of
collective harmony and interest of a society. That while
the right to speech and expression is absolutely
sacrosanct, dignity as a part of Article 21 has its own
significance. That dignity of an individual cannot be
overridden and blotched by malice and vile and venal
attacks to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another
by stating that the same curbs and puts unreasonable
restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. It
was therefore held that having regard to the unequivocal
declaration of the Apex Court, to the fact that Article 21
could not be sacrificed at the altar of securing the widest
amplitude of free speech rights, this premise can serve as
a theoretical justification for prescribing restraints on
derogatory and disparaging speech. Human dignity,
being a primary element under the protective umbrella of
Article 21, cannot be negatively altered on account of
derogatory speech, which marks out persons as unequal
and vilifies them leading to indignity. The right to protect
the dignity of an individual is therefore placed on a higher
pedestal than the right to speech.
10. Reference is also made to Section 117 of the
Indian Penal Code (the corresponding provision can be
found at Section 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023) and the Hon'ble Apex Court has singled out this
provision, as a provision protecting the interest of an
individual. The provision prescribes punishment for any
person who abets the commission of an offence sought to
be perpetrated against any individual in the Society.
11. Having regard to the facts and statements
narrated herein above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners herein have a right to seek
such directions to the respondent police. The respondent
police are required to take action in accordance with law if
they find that the 9th respondent or his followers or any
person makes any statement in the open public or
publishes any such derogatory statement, which is an
offence in accordance with law and in that regard, if any
material is placed by the petitioners or any person
aggrieved of any such action on the part of the 9th
respondent or his followers, and if such information is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
placed before the police, it is the bounden duty of the
respondents police to take action immediately, in
accordance with law.
12. With these observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of."
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would seek to
distinguish the said judgment to contend that it is inapplicable
to the facts of the case it is not, since both these issues relate
to one solitary claim for justice for Soujanya, I deem it
appropriate to paraphrase the findings therein to the subject
order. The Division Bench in W.P.No.15399 of 2019, holds as
follows:
".... .... ....
5. Petitioner has assailed the interim order passed
by the learned City Civil Judge mainly on the following
grounds:
• that the voters/citizen form the most vital
part of Democracy. Democracy expects
openness which is a hallmark of a free
Society. The right to get information is a
natural right flowing from Democracy. In the
absence of relevant information, voters will
be casting votes based on one sided
information;
• the purpose of Press is to advance public
interest by publishing facts and opinion
without which electorate cannot make a
responsible judgment. The impugned order
restraining the Press and publication of news
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
is violative of 'Freedom of Press' enshrined
in the Constitution.
6. Shri.Harish, submitted that the impugned order
is in the form of a 'gag order' and it has 'chilling effect' on
free flow of information. He relied upon following
authorities in support of his case:
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]
State Through Special Cell, New Delhi
[(2003) 6 SCC 641]
R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and another
[(1994)6 SCC 632]14
Brij Bhushan and another Vs. State of Delhi
[AIR 1950 SC 129]
7. Shri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate
for the plaintiff (second respondent) contended that:
• petitioner is not a party in the suit;
• no order is passed against the petitioner;
• a public interest litigation under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not maintainable against an
order passed in a Civil suit between private
parties in an inter party lis.
He placed reliance on the following authorities:
A.K.Subbaiah Vs. B.N.Garudachar [ILR 1987 KAR
100]
Magna Publishers Co. Ltd., and others Vs. Shilpa
S.Shetty [(2007)12 SCC 792]
Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and
others [(2015)5 SCC 423]
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
8. We have carefully considered the rival
contentions and perused the records.
9. The principal contention urged on behalf of the
petitioner is that, the impugned order is in the form of a
'gag order' and obstructs disclosure of complete
information about the contesting candidate which vitiates
the process of free and fair election.
10. The documents annexed to the plaint, copies
of which were made available by Shri. Harish for the
petitioner include tweets in social media. One of the tweet
is by a rival political party, which is in furtherance to a
tweet made by one Dr.Som Dutta.
11. Shri.Ashok Haranahalli's contention is that the
said Dr.Som Dutta has subsequently tweeted stating that
she would not allow political parties to use her tweet for
their agenda. Thus he argued that the author of the tweet
has no grievance. Nonetheless rival political parties are
likely to take undue advantage. Therefore, plaintiff is
justified in filing the suit and seeking temporary
injunction.
12. The cause of action described in the plaint is
the statements which the plaintiff claims to have read. A
careful perusal of plaint and annexed documents shows
that the tweet made by Dr.Som Dutta and responses to
the said tweet in the social media has prompted the
plaintiff to file the suit. It is averred in paragraph No.7
that keeping in view the ensuing election, persons
inimically disposed towards plaintiff are making efforts to
tarnish his image. In paragraph No.12, it is averred that if
defendants start telecasting or publishing false and
manipulated contents, the same would cause irreparable
loss to plaintiff's reputation.
13. It is relevant to note that calendar of events
have been issued and the election process for Lok Sabha
Election is in progress. Shri.Harish, learned Advocate is
right in his submission that voters have a right to know all
information about all contesting candidates.
14. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives
'Freedom of Speech and Expression' to every citizen.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
15. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned
order has restrained the defendants from making
'defamatory statements' against the plaintiff. What is
'defamatory' can be tested and decided only if an act of
making a statement or telecasting a program is
challenged by the aggrieved person before an appropriate
forum.
16. Therefore, in our view, the defendants are not
prevented from publishing or telecasting any news item
which is not defamatory in their opinion. In case plaintiff
is aggrieved by any such publication or telecast of any
news item, he may approach the Election Commission of
India.
We dispose of this writ petition with above
observation.
No costs."
The Division Bench was considering an identical gag order
issued by the State against the protesters. The Division Bench
observes that what is defamatory or what could be defamatory
can be found only when the citizen is permitted to protest, as
every citizen has freedom of speech and expression, as
obtaining under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
8. In that light, following the orders passed by the
coordinate bench, as also the Division Bench, as quoted supra,
I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to hold a
peaceful protest, strictly in consonance with law. If there is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11474
any violation of the observations made in the afore-quoted
judgment of the coordinate bench, it shall be open to the
respondent-State to take action in accordance with law, as is
observed by the coordinate bench.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand
disposed .
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
CT:SS
