Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Refuses Media Gag in Dharmasthala Case, Cites Dangers of ‘Super Injunctions’:
NEW DELHI — In a robust defense of press freedom, the Supreme Court of India has refused to impose a media gag order in the controversial Dharmasthala Temple mass burials case. The apex court, while directing a trial court in Karnataka to re-examine the temple administration’s plea, made it clear that such “super injunctions” are a rare measure that can “stifle free speech.”
The ruling by a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan came on Friday in response to a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple institutions. The petition challenged a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed a previous gag order imposed by a Bengaluru civil court on a YouTube channel, Kudla Rampage, and other media outlets.
Representing the temple administration, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that a barrage of “defamatory reports” and “internet memes” were harming the institution’s reputation. He urged the court to grant some form of interim protection to stem the flow of what he termed baseless accusations.
READ: Madras High Court Mandates Sweeping Reforms to Tackle Decades of Delay in Criminal Trials
However, the Supreme Court bench expressed significant reservations about granting such a request. Justice Manmohan, in a strong oral observation, stated that gag orders are only appropriate in “rarest of rare cases.” He offered an example: a journalist learning of a police officer’s contact with a terrorist. In all other circumstances, he said, such a restraint could prove to be a dangerous precedent.
“Gag orders are super injunctions. They stifle free speech,” Justice Manmohan said. “In this case there is one sanitation worker. If we pass a super injunction even his statement cannot be reported… We live in a free country.”
The case stems from serious allegations made by a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple. The worker, in a police complaint, claimed he was forced to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, for nearly two decades. While the complaint itself did not name specific accused, it triggered intense public debate and widespread media coverage.
READ: Remarks on Cooking, Clothing Not “Cruelty” Under IPC Section 498A
Following the allegations, Harshendra Kumar filed a civil defamation suit, listing thousands of allegedly defamatory links across various platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, and news portals. This led to a Bengaluru court initially issuing a blanket gag order, a decision that was later challenged and partially overturned by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court’s decision, which lifted the gag on Kudla Rampage but not on all media, prompted the temple administration to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
During Friday’s hearing, Justice Manmohan acknowledged the temple administration’s concerns about defamatory content, particularly the “memes” shown by Rohatgi. However, he suggested that the appropriate remedy for such posts was seeking damages, not a prior restraint on speech. “You’re right, there must be some limit to it, but… gag orders…” he said, trailing off as he reiterated his stance against the sweeping injunction.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to grant any interim relief. Instead, it directed the trial court to decide the temple’s application for an interim injunction “afresh” within two weeks of the next hearing. In a crucial instruction, the Supreme Court specified that the trial court should not be influenced by any observations made by the High Court, ensuring a neutral and independent review of the matter.
READ: JSW One MSME Achieves Unicorn Status with ₹500 Crore Pre-IPO Fundraise
The case, which has already seen a lower court judge recuse himself due to a potential conflict of interest, highlights the tension between the right to a good reputation and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a democracy.
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny a media gag and send the matter back to the trial court sends a powerful message that the judiciary views prior restraint on the press as a grave step, to be taken only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. The spotlight now shifts back to the trial court in Karnataka, which must balance these competing rights while a Special Investigation Team continues its probe into the explosive allegations.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
