Karnataka HC lifts gag order on Dharmasthala case coverage, calls for fresh hearing

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court that had restrained media platforms, including YouTube channels, from reporting on the alleged mass burials of sexual assault and murder victims in Dharmasthala over the past two decades.

The High Court instructed the lower court to reconsider the matter afresh.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the judgment on Friday, allowed a petition filed by YouTube channel Kudla Rampage challenging the ex parte interim injunction issued on July 8. The civil court's earlier order had barred the publication from any "defamatory content" targeting the family managing the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple.

"The ex parte injunction issued by the trial court is hereby quashed," the High Court ruled.

"The case is remitted to the competent court for fresh examination of the interlocutory application. The trial court shall take into account the directions and observations contained in this order," the court ruled.

Justice Nagaprasanna clarified that the High Court had not taken a stance on the civil or criminal aspects of the case, nor on the arguments and counter-arguments raised by the parties. All other issues remain open for adjudication, except the specific point dealt with in the present order. The trial court has been asked to decide the matter without delay.

The gag order had been obtained by Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade. Kumar had sought the removal of over 8,000 digital links comprising news articles, social media content, and videos which he alleged were defamatory towards him, his family, and the temple administration.

Reacting to the HC directive, Kudla Rampage's legal counsel A Velan hailed it as a milestone for press freedom.

"The Karnataka High Court has not merely issued a judgment, it has reaffirmed a cornerstone of our democracy," Velan said in a statement.

He called the civil court's gag order "an unconstitutional instance of prior restraint," arguing that it was overly broad, lacked jurisdiction, and had a chilling effect on journalistic reporting. "It sought to punish reportage and suppress public scrutiny in a matter of grave national concern," he added.