The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief to YSRCP leader and former TTD chairman YV Subba Reddy in a defamation case over media reports on the Tirupati laddu adulteration controversy.
The Court held that restraining the media without hearing them is justified only in exceptional cases and allowed the matter to proceed after pleadings.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declined to grant immediate relief to YSR Congress Party leader and former Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams chairperson Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy in a defamation suit filed against several media organisations over reports relating to the alleged adulteration of Tirupati laddu prasadam.
The case was heard by a single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal, which refused to grant an “ex-parte interim injunction” against the media. The Court clearly stated that stopping publication without first hearing the other side is not the normal rule, especially when the press is involved.
It observed that prior restraint on speech, particularly against media entities, is allowed only in
“exceptional and narrowly circumscribed circumstances”.
At the initial stage of the case, the High Court said it was necessary to give the media defendants a fair chance to present their defence before considering any interim relief.
The Court found that the legal standards required for passing an ex-parte order in a defamation matter had not been met at this stage.
The defamation suit has been filed by Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy along with his wife. They have alleged that several media reports made defamatory statements by linking them to irregularities in the procurement of ghee used for preparing the laddu prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala.
Reddy served as the Chairman of the Board of the Committee of Management of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams from June 2019 to August 2023.
According to the allegations reported in the media, the decisions related to ghee procurement were taken during this period. Reddy has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the reports have damaged his reputation.
While refusing immediate relief, the High Court reiterated that ex-parte injunctions in defamation cases can be granted only when strict conditions are satisfied.
These include urgency, the likelihood of irreparable harm, and the presence of a very strong prima facie case. The Court held that these requirements were not clearly established in the present matter.
The Court’s approach is in line with long-standing legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI. In these judgments, courts have repeatedly warned against passing gag orders that interfere with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, except where such restrictions are clearly permitted by law.
At the same time, Justice Bansal also cautioned the media organisations involved in the case. The Court observed that any publications made after the date of the order would be open to judicial scrutiny. It further noted that any future reporting would carry legal consequences depending on its nature and content.
This observation highlights the balancing exercise that courts regularly perform between the right to reputation, which is recognised as an “intrinsic facet” of Article 21, and the constitutional protection given to fair and responsible reporting on matters of “public interest”.
The controversy surrounding the Tirupati laddu prasadam has gained nationwide attention after allegations surfaced that impure ghee, allegedly containing “animal fats or fish oil”, may have been used in its preparation.
Given the religious sensitivity and public importance of the issue, the Supreme Court has already stepped in and directed the formation of an independent Special Investigation Team to ensure a “fair, transparent, and credible inquiry”.
In the present defamation suit, Justice Amit Bansal has issued summons to the media defendants, including Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited and others. The case has been titled Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy & Anr. v. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the application seeking interim injunction will be considered only after the pleadings are completed. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on January 29.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tirupati
