Supreme Court Today (July 23) refused to directly hear a plea by YouTube channel Third Eye against a Bengaluru court’s gag order. The channel must now approach the Karnataka High Court first.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today refused to directly hear a petition filed by the YouTube channel Third Eye. This petition challenged a gag order passed by a Bengaluru sessions court.
The order restrained the channel and others from publishing or sharing any content that could be defamatory towards Harshendra Kumar D, who is the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, in connection with the widely-discussed Dharmasthala temple burial case.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justices Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, heard the matter. However, instead of taking the case up immediately, the top court asked the petitioners to first take their case to the Karnataka High Court.
The counsel appearing for Third Eye told the bench:
“9,000 video links have been asked to be taken off. This is a gag order.”
In response, CJI Gavai remarked:
“First go to the High court and then come here. We cannot discourage our High Courts.”
The Third Eye channel alleged that the sessions court’s order was unfair and had been obtained through “a calculated abuse of judicial process and material misrepresentation” by Harshendra Kumar, who filed the defamation case.
They claimed that this order directly hampers an important state-level criminal investigation into alleged mass burials and other grave crimes allegedly linked to the Dharmasthala temple.
According to the petition filed in the apex court:
“It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21).”
This whole controversy started when a sanitation worker came forward with serious claims, alleging that he was forced to bury several bodies at the Dharmasthala temple site. He even filed a police complaint claiming he was threatened by his supervisors and forced to carry out these burials.
However, it is important to note that he did not name any specific person involved in the alleged acts.
Following this, Harshendra Kumar, who serves as the Secretary of the Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple Institutions in Dharmasthala, filed a defamation suit.
In his plea to the trial court, he submitted a detailed list of 8,842 online links that included:
- 4,140 YouTube videos
- 932 Facebook posts
- 3,584 Instagram posts
- 108 news articles
- 37 Reddit posts
- 41 tweets
He stated that these links spread false and damaging information about him, his family, and the temple institutions. He also pointed out that none of the FIRs (First Information Reports) filed in the case included any accusations against him or the institutions.
In fact, one FIR from 2012 had already resulted in an acquittal, and a more recent FIR did not even mention his name.
Based on this, Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai, of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, passed an order restraining not just Third Eye but also unknown persons from publishing or sharing any such content. The order applied to digital media, social media, and even print platforms.
The court also ordered that already published defamatory content must be removed or de-indexed.
In a key portion of its ruling, the court emphasized:
“The Court cannot ignore the fact that though the reputation of every citizens is very important, when an allegation is made against the institution, and temple, it affects wider range of people including the employees and students who are studying in various colleges and schools. Therefore, even a single false and defamatory publication would seriously affect the functioning of the institutions.”
Unhappy with this decision, Third Eye moved the Supreme Court, but their appeal was not entertained. The top court said it was not appropriate to bypass the High Court, which should be approached first in such matters.
CASE TITLE:
Third Eye YouTube Channel vs Sei Harshendra Kumar D and ors.
WHAT IS A GAG ORDER?
A gag order is a court order that restricts parties involved in a legal case from publicly discussing or disseminating information about the case.
This restriction typically applies to lawyers, witnesses, and sometimes even the press, and is intended to prevent the potential for prejudice or influence on the trial’s outcome.
Purpose:
Gag orders are designed to ensure a fair trial by limiting public discussion and potential influence on jurors.
Scope:
They can restrict participants from talking to the press, posting information online, or even discussing the case with each other outside of the courtroom.
Examples:
A judge might issue a gag order to prevent speculation about the case, protect the privacy of individuals involved, or prevent lawyers from trying the case in the media.
Controversies:
Gag orders can raise concerns about freedom of speech and press, particularly when applied to media outlets.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Dharmasthala Burial
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
