Supreme Court Declines to Lift Gag Order in Karnataka Temple Mass Burial Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to directly challenge an ex-parte gag order restricting media coverage of potentially defamatory content related to the Sri Manjunathaswamy temple in Dharmasthala, Karnataka, and its administration, amidst investigations into allegations of mass burials. The court advised parties to first pursue remedies within the Karnataka High Court.
The case stems from a complaint filed by a sanitation worker alleging the burial of women’s and children’s bodies in Dharmasthala village between 1995 and 2014, sparking a state investigation and subsequent legal challenges regarding media reporting.
Rapidly Imposed Restrictions
According to reports, the gag order, issued by a Bengaluru city civil court on July 18th, was enacted swiftly. Counsel for the Third Eye YouTube channel informed the court that the order was passed in just three hours, demanding the takedown of approximately 9,000 links and stories. “This is against an ex-parte gag order against 390 media houses,” the counsel stated before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai’s bench. “It was passed in three hours, stating to take down about 9,000 links and 9,000 stories. This is in the backdrop of [a] SIT made by Karnataka with DIG officers — it states it will be potentially defamatory and hence, takedown.”
Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi also comprised the bench.
Origin of the Legal Dispute
The temporary injunction order originated from a suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade. The 10th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge issued the order to prevent the publication and circulation of defamatory content concerning Harshendra Kumar D, his family, their institutions, and the temple across all media platforms. The order also mandated the removal of existing defamatory content.
Concerns Over Judicial Process and Investigation
The Third Eye channel argued in its petition that the Bengaluru court’s order was a result of “judicial process misuse and misrepresentation” by the plaintiffs. They contend that the order potentially impedes the ongoing state investigation into the alleged mass burial and associated serious offenses. The petition further highlighted that, despite the plaintiffs initially specifying 8,842 URLs for removal, the court issued a broad gag order shortly after the plaint’s submission.
The petitioner also asserted that the plaintiffs misrepresented the contents of the initial First Information Report (FIR), claiming it contained no allegations against them when, in fact, it included complaints implicating the temple administration.
Special Investigation Team Established
Karnataka authorities have established a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations. DG (Internal Security Division) Pronab Mohanty heads the SIT, comprised of 20 police officials of varying ranks, including IPS officers MN Anucheth and SK Soumyalatha. DG-IGP MA Saleem appointed the team to oversee the investigation.
The Supreme Court’s decision to advise approaching the High Court first suggests a preference for a more thorough examination of the case within the Karnataka legal system. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for media freedom and the balance between protecting reputations and ensuring public access to information regarding sensitive investigations.
