The court has also issued a temporary injunction restraining the “publishing, circulating, forwarding, uploading, transmitting and telecasting” any defamatory content and information against the plaintiff.
Published Jul 21, 2025 | 7:02 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 21, 2025 | 7:02 PM
Manjunatha Temple, Dharmasthala
Synopsis: A Bengaluru civil court has issued a sweeping ex parte interim injunction against over 300 individuals, media outlets, and social media platforms, restraining them from publishing or sharing allegedly defamatory content against Harshendra Kumar D – the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade – his family members, and the Dharmasthala temple institutions. The court also issued a John Doe injunction to prevent unidentified individuals from publishing similar content in future.
A city civil court in Bengaluru has granted a sweeping ex parte interim injunction in favour of Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari D Veerendra Heggade, directing the removal and de-indexing of over 8,000 online links – including news reports, social media posts, and videos – that allegedly carry defamatory content against Kumar, his family members, institutions run by the family, and the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple.
Much of the material pertains to FIR No. 39/2025, registered earlier this month at the Dharmasthala Police Station, following explosive allegations made by a former sanitation worker at the temple that hundreds of men, women and girls were victims of sexual assault and murder and coverups over a period of 20 years in the temple town of Dharmastala.
The order, passed by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai on 20 July, directs 338 defendants – including journalists, YouTube creators, digital media outlets, and tech companies such as Google, Meta, WhatsApp, and X Corp – to take down or de-index the specified content with immediate effect.
The court has also issued a temporary injunction restraining the “publishing, circulating, forwarding, uploading, transmitting and telecasting” any defamatory content and information against the plaintiff.
The civil suit (O.S. No. 5185/2025), filed on 18 July by Harshendra Kumar through his Special Power of Attorney holder Rakshith Kumar provided an exhaustive list of 8,842 links as evidence of what the plaintiff describes as “false, fabricated and concocted stories” connecting him, his family, and the Dharmasthala temple administration to the whistleblower’s allegations.
According to the petition, the materials have caused significant harm to the reputation not only of Harshendra but also to the Manjunathaswamy Temple and the various educational and charitable institutions managed by the family and the temple trust.
“Making false, baseless and reckless allegations against the plaintiff, Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala, the institutions run by the Kshetra/Educational Society, the organisations established by Dharmasthala Temple, elder brother of plaintiff Dr D Veerendra Heggade and his family members… on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or created by them in respect of Crime No. 39/2025 or any other similar issues,” the affidavit states.
“The invaluable good reputation of the plaintiff, his elder and his family members, the temple and the institutions run by them will be affected if any reckless allegations are made against them without any basis.”
The court, granting the order, held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for interim relief and observed that any delay could result in “irreparable loss and hardship.”
“The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff,” the court noted.
“The court cannot ignore the fact that though the reputation of every citizen is very important, when an allegation is made against the institution and temple, it affects a wider range of people, including the employees and students who are studying in various colleges and schools.”
Beyond the 338 named respondents, the plaintiff also sought to restrain unidentified or anonymous individuals from uploading, reposting, or commenting on the allegations against him and his family.
The suit specifically requested a John Doe / Ashok Kumar injunction – a legal remedy used when the identities of potential future violators are unknown. Such orders allow courts to pre-emptively protect rights such as reputation and dignity, particularly in the context of digital media where anonymous and viral defamation can be difficult to control.
The petition states:
“Some of the unknown persons or parties are cropping up and started to make allegations against the plaintiff, his elder and his family members, the temple and the institutions run by them. The orders passed by this Hon’ble Court are not being adhered to by the vested interested persons by continuously violating the Court orders… I believe that rights of plaintiff are being infringed by unknown persons solely with an intention to defeat the orders passed by the Hon’ble Courts.”
“It is brought to the notice of this Court that several unknown persons, who are not arrayed as defendants in the suit, have begun circulating the very same defamatory allegations. The effect of the injunction would be nullified if such persons are not brought under its ambit,” the order states.
“In view of the peculiar nature of the digital medium, where posts and videos can be copied, reposted or morphed by anonymous accounts or unverified handles, it is necessary to restrain even unknown persons from such dissemination.”
The court also observed that the reputational injury went beyond the plaintiff, impacting institutions of public value, including educational and charitable organisations run by the Dharmasthala trust:
“Any unverified and malicious allegation, even when made against an individual, affects the larger public interest when the individual is integrally associated with religious, educational and service institutions that cater to lakhs of people,” the court states.
“The Court is of the opinion that the rights of the plaintiff and the institutions he represents deserve protection not only from known infringers but also from persons who may arise in the future with a common intention to defame, malign or create disrepute, particularly when the foundation of such publications lacks verifiable material.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
