Karnataka HC quashes gag order on online media channel over Dharmasthala case reports

Indian Express

3 days ago

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed a gag order on Mangaluru-based online media channel Kudla Rampage related to its reports on the Dharmasthala 'secret burials' case.
'The concerned court, at the threshold and without the benefit of adversarial hearing, has ventured to grant a sweeping mandatory injunction, a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial,' Justice M Nagaprasanna said, remanding the matter to the lower court to be heard afresh.
The court also came down strongly on some of the reasoning in the gag order. 'The impugned order though spanning multiple pages, conspicuously lacks the foundational reason……the order may span pages, but spanning pages has not depicted application of mind. It is application of mind that is required, in a reasoned order, and not application of ink,' Justice Nagaprasanna added.
The Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru had on July 18 granted an ex parte injunction to delete 8,812 links related to the Dharmasthala burials case. The injunction was based on a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of BJP MP D Veerendra Heggade and secretary of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society.
The channel's counsel, A Velan, had argued that an injunction, which was doubtful at the closing stages of the case, had been granted in the interlocutory stage itself, and said that this was violative of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Arguing that it was a case of restraint on freedom of speech, he further pointed out that there was no reasoning behind passing a 'John Doe' order in this case. John Doe orders are orders where a defendant is unknown. Velan also asserted that the order, in a matter of public importance, was creating a perpetual gag order on future speakers.
Representing Harshendra Kumar, senior advocate Udaya Holla argued that the petition by Kudla Rampage was not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the petitioner had not availed the remedy under the CPC to vacate the order. He also stated that the high court had twice directed the channel to be banned, stating that in a case which was being investigated, it was producing defamatory content projecting Kumar to be guilty and creating defamatory content.
The bench stated that the injunction at this stage had the character of a final order, explaining, 'The impugned order…while ostensibly couched as an interim measure, in truth and effect, partakes the character of a final determination.'
The bench also pointed out multiple Supreme Court precedents with regard to the type of reasoning required for passing an ex parte order or interim injunction in such cases.
The court also clarified that 'John Doe' or 'Ashok Kumar orders', as they are known in India, ought to be granted only with great caution, observing that the current order was wide enough that any voice against Kumar, his family or the location of the incident would be caught in it.
The court added, 'The order speaks of prohibition of defamatory statements. Not one word of what kind of statements are defamatory for the Court to pass the aforequoted order is found in the order.'
The court then quashed the ex parte order as far as it pertains to Kudla Rampage.