Bengaluru, August 1, 2025 — In a landmark judgment restoring press freedom, the Karnataka High Court has quashed ex-parte gag orders issued by a Bengaluru civil court that imposed sweeping restrictions on media coverage related to the Dharmasthala mass burial allegations. Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared the blanket injunction unconstitutional, emphasizing that the public’s right to know cannot be infringed without due process.
🕵️ What Sparked the Legal Battle?
A former sanitation worker alleged mass burials of women and minors between 1995 and 2014 in Dharmasthala temple premises, naming individuals associated with the temple’s administration. After over 8,800 online articles and videos—including those by YouTube channel Kudla Rampage—were removed via a July 18 ex-parte injunction by Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai.
Media entities, activists, and journalists challenged this, asserting it caused a chilling effect on free speech and violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
⚖️ Karnataka High Court’s Legal Reasoning
1. Lack of Adversarial Hearing
Justice Nagaprasanna held that the ex‑parte order was akin to a final injunction granted without allowing the press to present their side—a violation of principles under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Poor Judicial Reasoning
The order spanned pages but lacked substantive justification or description of which statements were allegedly defamatory. The bench admonished the lower court: “Application of ink cannot substitute application of mind.”
3. Misuse of John Doe Injunctions
The Karnataka High Court warned against overbroad “John Doe” injunctions that restrain unidentified future speech, stating such orders must be approached with extreme caution.
The HC remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh hearing in compliance with fair procedures.
🚨 Conflict of Interest & Judicial Recusal
Controversy arose when journalist Naveen Soorinje alleged Judge Rai had studied at SDM Law College, managed by Dharmasthala’s governing trust, and had previously worked under lawyers representing the plaintiff’s family. Rai recused himself, citing appearance of bias, and transferred the case to the Principal Civil Sessions Court.
🔎 Wider Legal & Public Implications
⚖️ Media Freedom & Public Interest
The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that reporting from public documents—e.g., FIRs, court testimony—is protected speech and not defamation until proven otherwise. The verdict is a significant reaffirmation of Article 19(1)(a) rights in judicial practice.
📚 Judicial Oversight Standards
This ruling underscores that courts must not use ex-parte powers to muzzle investigative journalism, particularly on issues of institutional accountability. It signals the need for greater transparency in grant of gag orders.
🧾 Accountability & Ongoing SIT Probe
The case remains under investigation by a state-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) after recovery of skeletal remains. The HC judgment now ensures transparency in media scrutiny during legal proceedings.
📦 Summary Table
| Issue | Karnataka High Court Finding |
|---|---|
| Ex-parte gag order | Violates principles of fair hearing under CPC |
| Reasoning in lower court order | Lacked rational basis or detail |
| Blanket injunction (John Doe order) | Overbroad and unconstitutional |
| Judicial bias concerns | Judge recused due to institutional affiliations |
| Impact on public reporting | Set aside to restore press freedom and public scrutiny |
✅ Final Takeaway
By striking down the gag order, the Karnataka High Court has set a strong precedent affirming media rights and safe public discourse. The judgment reminds lower courts that restrictions on speech—especially prior restraints—must meet strict thresholds, and must not silence matters of significant public interest. As the Dharmasthala burial probe proceeds, stakeholders will watch whether the trial court adheres to the HC’s framework for balanced, lawful adjudication.
To read more Indian Laws and news, visit Legal Guide India
