The Supreme Court on Friday directed a trial court in Karnataka to reconsider, within two weeks, a petition by the Dharmasthala Temple administration seeking to block publication of allegedly defamatory reports in connection with the Dharmasthala mass burials case.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan questioned whether a media gag was justified in the circumstances and made it clear that “any observations made by the High Court shall not influence the trial court while entertaining the application for stay afresh.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the temple administration, told the court that television channels and social media platforms were “day after day” circulating defamatory content, and even displayed to the bench certain internet memes which he said targeted the temple and its management.
The appeal before the top court was filed by Harshendra Kumar D, secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple body, challenging the August 1 order of the Karnataka High Court that quashed an earlier Bengaluru civil court gag on media reportage of the case. The gag order, Kumar contended, was necessary to curb “false and defamatory content” aimed at the family of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade, the hereditary head of the temple.
The Supreme Court’s order came against the backdrop of an earlier proceeding on July 23, when it declined to hear a petition by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging the sweeping local court gag order. That order had restrained nearly 390 media houses from reporting on matters relating to the temple chief’s brother and directed removal of close to 9,000 links and news items.
The original gag order arose from Kumar’s defamation suit, which alleged a campaign of misinformation and defamatory reporting.
The burial case itself stems from allegations made by a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple, who told police that he had been compelled by his supervisors to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, over a span of nearly two decades. While the complaint did not name any specific individuals as accused in a crime, the revelations prompted public outcry, sustained media coverage, and sharp online debate.
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Karnataka government has set up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.
On July 23, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain a petition filed by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging a sweeping gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court. That local court order, passed in a defamation suit filed by Dharmasthala Temple secretary Harshendra Kumar D, had restrained nearly 390 media outlets from reporting on matters connected to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade. It also directed the removal of close to 9,000 links and stories from various platforms relating to the Dharmasthala burial case. The top court, however, gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the Karnataka High Court.
On August 1, the Karnataka High Court set aside that gag order, terming it unsustainable. The High Court noted that prior restraint on publication is an extreme measure permissible only in exceptional circumstances and found no compelling justification for such a sweeping curb on media reportage in the present case. This quashing of the gag order prompted Kumar to move the Supreme Court once again, this time seeking restoration of reporting restrictions and removal of what he described as defamatory online content targeting the temple management.