Dharmasthala Burial Case | “Skull I Produced Was Not From the Buried Body”: Admits Complainant Witness as SIT Produces Him Before Court

Dharmasthala mass burial case took a turn when the complainant witness admitted in Belthangady court that the skull he produced was not from the buried body, after which SIT officials immediately took him into custody.

Dharmasthala Burial Case| “Gag Orders Are Passed in the Rarest of Cases, It Can Stiffen Free Speech”: Supreme Court

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.

Dharmasthala Burial Case | “Around 8,000 YouTube Channels Are Running Defamatory Content Against Temple”: Plea in Supreme Court Challenges Karnataka HC’s Media Gag Quashing

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.

Delhi HC Drops Rs 1 lakh Fine On Lawyer for seeking “Media Gag” on Reporting Against Arvind Kejriwal

Today (27th May): The Delhi High Court has dropped a Rs 1 lakh fine imposed on a lawyer who filed a PIL aimed at restraining media channels from airing sensational headlines regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s resignation. The court directed the lawyer to perform community service and attach the court’s order to any future petition. The PIL sought to restrict media coverage and was considered beyond the court’s purview.

[Breaking] Imposed Rs 1 Lakh Fine For Seeking Media Gag on Arvind Kejriwal: Delhi HC

Today (8th May): The Delhi High Court fined a petitioner Rs 1 lakh for seeking a media gag on reporting about Arvind Kejriwal. The court rejected a PIL seeking to restrain media channels from airing sensational headlines and imposed the fine, criticizing the attempt to stifle political rivals. The plea was dismissed, and the court clarified its limitations in imposing censorship or curtailing opponents’ rights.