Dharmasthala Temple: Supreme Court refuses to gag media, asks trial court to decide temple admin's plea afresh

The Supreme Court on Friday directed a trial court in Karnataka to decide afresh the plea filed by the secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple to restrain the publication of allegedly defamatory reports in the Dharmasthala mass burials case [Harshendra Kumar D Versus Kudla Rampage And Ors.].However, the Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan expressed reservations about whether a media gag was required in the matter. The Court was hearing a plea by the Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple institutions, Harshendra Kumar D, against a Karnataka High Court order quashing the media gag imposed by a Bengaluru civil court on YouTube channel Kudla Rampage regarding its reportage on the Dharmasthala mass burial case..Representing the temple administration, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that day after day, news channels and social media were running defamatory reports. He also showed the Court posts of allegedly defamatory internet memes.The Bench today noted that the temple can always claim the remedy of damages for such defamatory posts. However, it questioned whether a media gag should be imposed. "Gag orders are only passed in the rarest of rare cases. For example the journalist gets to know that police officer has number of a terrorist. Then they can’t publish. But gag orders are super injunctions. They stifle free speech. In this case there is one sanitation worker. If we pass a super injunction even his statement cannot be reported," Justice Manmohan said..The judge went on to observe that the matter can be considered by the trial court itself. "Let it be argued before the trial court. There is no documentary evidence. We live in a free country," he said. "If a judge is shown to be accepting money, so what will happen to the institution?" Rohatgi argued."These are all memes. We can ask them to pull it down. You’re right, there must be some limit to it but… gag orders…," Justice Manmohan replied. He went on to opine that the trial court can decide on the matter independently. "You show all this to the trial court. Let them apply their mind independently and decide," the judge said. .Rohatgi then urged the Court to grant some form of interim protection. "Give me at least some injunction. One man (Kudla Rampage) moves the High Court. The law is, he who moves should get the benefit. How are 299 others (other media outlets who were earlier subjected to the media gag as well) getting the benefit? Lordships may give some protection," the senior lawyer said. However, the Court declined to grant any relief and ordered the trial court to decide on the temple administration's plea for an interim injunction afresh."We direct the trial court to decide the application within two weeks from the next day of hearing. Any observations made by the High Court shall not influence the trial court while entertaining the application for stay afresh," the top court's order said. .The case stems from the media coverage that followed serious allegations made by a former sanitation worker employed at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple. The worker claimed in a police complaint that he had been forced by his supervisors to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, for nearly two decades. While the complaint did not name any specific individuals as accused in a crime, the revelations triggered significant public debate and media reportage.Following this, Harshendra Kumar filed a civil defamation suit before a sessions court in Bengaluru, listing 8,842 allegedly defamatory links. These included 4,140 YouTube videos, 932 Facebook posts, 3,584 Instagram posts, 108 news articles, 37 Reddit posts, and 41 tweets..On July 18, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijay Kumar Rai passed a blanket gag order till August 5 against reporting the issue.This was challenged before the Karnataka High Court by Kudla Rampage. On August 1, the High Court lifted the restraining order imposed on the YouTube channel, but the gag order effectively remained in force with respect to other media outlets.Judge Rai later requested that the matter be placed before another judge. This was after journalist Naveen Soorinje pointed out that judge Rai had been a student of the 1995-1998 batch of the SDM Law College, Mangalore, which is run by the Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Trust.The matter then came up before Judge Anitha M, who recently dismissed the Dharmasthala temple administration's plea to injunct the media's reporting of the mass burial allegations. This effectively lifted the earlier media gag..[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.