A Bengaluru court has reserved its order on Siddaramaiah’s defamation suit seeking to restrain media organisations and platforms from carrying videos that allegedly link him to a honey-trap network, with the order due on October 13.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has reserved orders on an interim application in a defamation suit filed by former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against 42 defendants, including media organisations, digital platforms and others, over allegations about a purported honey-trap network. The plaintiff’s contentions are yet to be tested, and the defendants’ response is not on record.
The matter was heard on October 12 by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge B. Pushpanjali, who reserved the order on the interim application. The order was due to be pronounced on Tuesday, October 13.
The suit
The suit targets two videos. The first was uploaded by a YouTube channel on September 27 and, according to the plaint, links Siddaramaiah to blackmail, an alleged honey-trap network and his earlier resignation as Chief Minister this year. The second is an hour-long programme aired by a Kannada news channel on October 2, 2026, which the plaint says repeatedly referred to an alleged CD and suggested the involvement of a prominent leader without showing independently verified material.
The defendants named include a Kannada news channel, a YouTube channel, several Kannada and English newspapers and television channels, and platforms such as WhatsApp, YouTube LLC, Google India, Yahoo India and Facebook India. The content of the allegations is not repeated here because it is the very matter in dispute.
What the plaintiff says
Siddaramaiah describes the insinuations as false, baseless and intended to damage his reputation and political standing. The plaint states that there is no contemporaneous complaint, independent witness statement or other verifiable evidence behind the allegations, and questions how a purported recording relied upon in the content was made and framed. It also contends that continued availability of the videos risks further spread through clips, edited versions, screenshots and social media posts, causing irreparable harm.
The reliefs sought
He seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from broadcasting, publishing or sharing the two videos, along with clips, screenshots, transcripts or reports reproducing their allegations, and a direction that the videos be removed and access disabled by the platforms. The interim application, on which the order has been reserved, seeks takedown and a restraint on further publication while the suit is pending.
The filing comes amid a wider political row in Karnataka over alleged sting operations, in which leaders across parties have traded allegations and counter-allegations. None of those allegations has been established.
Why the order matters
Plaintiffs in public life increasingly seek pre-trial takedown of content, and courts have to weigh reputation against free speech and the public’s right to information before granting any restraint. The order on the interim application will show how the court balances those interests where the content concerns a political figure, and where the defendants include both media houses and global platforms.
The court has expressed no view on the truth of the allegations or on the merits of the suit, and the plaintiff’s contentions are yet to be tested at trial.
Case Title: Siddaramaiah v. Freedom TV Kannada and Others (title unverified)
Bench: Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge B. Pushpanjali, Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court
Date of Hearing: October 12, 2026 (order reserved; due October 13, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol for the plaintiff; the suit was filed through Advocates Shathabish Shivanna and Praveen Kamath