Today, On 8th August, The Supreme Court, while hearing the Dharmasthala burial case, observed that “gag orders are passed in the rarest of cases” and cautioned that such orders “can stiffen free speech,” directing the trial court to decide the matter afresh within two weeks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a petition in the Dharmasthala defamation case, where the petitioner has challenged the Karnataka High Court’s order lifting a gag on YouTube content.
The matter came up before a bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan.
At the start of the hearing, the bench remarked,
“My understanding is that gag orders are passed in the rarest of cases. It can stiffen free speech. This is a documentary order so let it be argued.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, requested some interim relief.
He said,
“In the meantime I should get some relief.”
The court, however, suggested that the matter be placed before the trial court.
ALSO READ: Dharmasthala Temple Burial | Karnataka High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Media Gag Order
The bench told him,
“You show all this to trial court and let them apply their mind,”
Rohatgi expressed concern about losing protection if the matter went to the trial court, saying,
“Then my lords my protection is gone.”
The bench responded by explaining the principle that should be applied in such matters.
“What should be applied is necessary proportionate and if there is a alternate remedy available,”
Still pressing for some safeguard, Rohatgi urged,
“You lordships may grant some protection.”
He further pointed out the urgency of the matter, adding,
“The order is on Monday. Your lordships may say that it is either taken up or decided on that day.”
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court passed its order.
The bench directed the trial court to hear the matter again and decide it quickly. It recorded that the issue raised was about the order affecting the petitioner’s reputation. The trial court has been asked to decide the case afresh within two weeks from the next hearing date.
All pleadings are to be completed in this period. The court also made it clear that any observations made by the High Court in its earlier order will not affect the trial court’s decision, and that the matter should be decided entirely on its own merits.
The case originated from allegations made by a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple.
The worker claimed in a police complaint that he had been coerced by his supervisors to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, for nearly two decades. While the complaint did not name specific individuals as offenders, these revelations sparked considerable public discourse and media attention.
In response, Harshendra Kumar filed a civil defamation suit in a Bengaluru sessions court, listing a staggering 8,842 allegedly defamatory links. This included 4,140 YouTube videos, 932 Facebook posts, 3,584 Instagram posts, 108 news articles, 37 Reddit posts, and 41 tweets.
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.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijay Kumar Rai, On July 18, issued a blanket gag order until August 5 against any reporting on the matter.
Kudla Rampage subsequently challenged this order in the Karnataka High Court. On August 1, the High Court lifted the restraining order on the YouTube channel, but the gag order largely remained in effect for other media outlets.
Judge Rai later requested that the case be reassigned to another judge after journalist Naveen Soorinje noted that he had been a student in the 1995-1998 batch at SDM Law College, Mangalore, which is operated by the Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Trust.
The matter was then presented to Judge Anitha M, who on the previous day dismissed the Dharmasthala temple administration’s request to restrict media reporting on the mass burial allegations, effectively lifting the earlier media gag.
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case