The News Minute moves the Karnataka High Court challenging gag orders in the Dharmasthala burial case, asserting that silencing the truth won’t bury it and defending press freedom under Article 19.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: Spunklane Media Private Limited, the parent company of digital news platform The News Minute (TNM), has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging two separate gag orders that it claims were misused to restrict its reporting on two major stories, the 2012 murder of 17-year-old Sowjanya and recent allegations involving the Dharmasthala temple and alleged secret burials.
ALSO READ: Dharmasthala Temple Burial | Karnataka High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Media Gag Order
Background of the Case
TNM filed two writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court:
First Petition: Challenging an ex parte gag order dated March 22, 2025, passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
- This order came in a civil suit filed by employees of the Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project.
- TNM was not a party to the suit but received notices demanding the removal of certain articles and a tweet, citing the court’s order under the ‘John Doe’ classification.
- The ‘John Doe’ order empowers courts to restrain unknown parties whose identities are not known at the time of the suit.
- TNM temporarily removed the content “without prejudice” to avoid legal complications but later refused further takedown requests, arguing the cited video was not part of the order and contained verified facts like an FIR filing and statements from Karnataka’s Home Minister.
Second Petition: Challenging another ex parte gag order dated July 18, 2025, passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
- TNM was named as Defendant No. 47 among 339 defendants in a suit filed by Dharmasthala representatives.
- The order restrained TNM from publishing any content related to the Dharmasthala controversy.
- TNM argues the order violates Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires courts to record reasons for passing an ex parte order without hearing the other side.
- The plea further contends the order imposes a blanket ban, failing to distinguish between defamatory material and fair, factual reporting on a matter of public interest.
According to TNM, these gag orders collectively undermine press freedom as their sweeping nature imposes a chilling effect on free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The news portal further contends that the orders lack due process since no opportunity was given to TNM to present its case before the injunctions were issued.
Additionally, TNM argues that the restrictions unfairly target its fair and factual reporting, emphasizing that none of its articles attributed any wrongdoing to specific individuals from the Dharmasthala administration.
TNM has relied on a recent Karnataka High Court judgment in a similar case involving the YouTube channel Kudla Rampage, where the Court quashed a similar ex parte gag order dated July 18, 2025. TNM seeks similar relief.
The orders stem from a defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, Secretary of Dharmasthala temple institutions, who alleged that 8,842 pieces of content were defamatory. This included:
- 4,140 YouTube videos
- 932 Facebook posts
- 3,584 Instagram posts
- 108 news articles
- 37 Reddit posts
- 41 tweets
The trial court then passed a blanket injunction restraining publication of any content related to the Dharmasthala controversy.
The media reports followed shocking claims by a former sanitation worker employed at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple. In a police complaint, the worker alleged being forced by supervisors to bury multiple bodies, including those of women, over two decades. While the complaint did not name individuals, the revelations sparked intense public debate and media scrutiny.
Case Title:
Spunklane Media Pvt Ltd v Harshendra Kumar D & ors and connected case
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case