Continuing to enforce the injunction now directly hindered an official probe into the case and fundamentally compromised the media’s crucial role as a public watchdog, counsel for the petitioner argued.
Published Jul 26, 2025 | 1:55 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 26, 2025 | 1:55 PM
Karnataka High Court. (Wikmedia)
Synopsis: It was argued that the injunction constituted unconstitutional prior restraint, amounting to pre-emptive censorship and directly conflicting with Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which covers freedom of speech. The advocate for Kudla Rampage also stated that by generically banning unspecified “defamatory content,” the order lacked clarity, creating an environment of fear and self-censorship among journalists.
The High Court of Karnataka is witnessing a significant battle over press freedom and public access to information. Digital platform Kudla Rampage has filed a case against the sweeping media gag order in connection with the ongoing Dharmasthala mass burials case.
On 25 July, Supreme Court Advocate A Velan commenced arguments for Kudla Rampage, seeking to overturn an ex-parte interim injunction passed by the Bengaluru City Civil Court on 18 July. This injunction aims to restrain 338 media organizations and individuals from reporting on the case and demands the removal of 8,842 URLs in a single order.
The order was requested by Harshendra Kumar, Administrator of the Dharmasthala Temple, targeting what he described as “defamatory content” related to allegations of mass murders and sexual assaults in Dharmasthala as detailed in FIR No. 39/2025.
Advocate Velan argued that the injunction constituted unconstitutional prior restraint, amounting to pre-emptive censorship and directly conflicting with Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which covers freedom of speech. He also stated that by generically banning unspecified “defamatory content,” the order lacked clarity, creating an environment of fear and self-censorship among journalists.
Terming the order a violation of natural justice, he said that the order was passed without input from the affected media platforms, violating the basic legal principle of “audi alteram partem” (the right to a fair hearing).
The writ petition highlighted rapid developments that further undermined the legitimacy of the gag order after Sujatha Bhat, a former CBI stenographer, filed a new complaint alleging her daughter vanished in Dharmasthala in 2003 and has named both the original plaintiff and his brother, Dr. Veerendra Heggade.
Following widespread media coverage, on 19 July, the Karnataka government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations, acknowledging that media reports prompted official intervention and underscoring their public interest value.
Advocate Velan pressed that continuing to enforce the injunction now directly hindered an official probe into the case and fundamentally compromised the media’s crucial role as a public watchdog.
The Karnataka High Court will resume hearing submissions on this matter at 2.30 pm on 29 July.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
