Supreme Court Refuses to Gag Media in Dharmasthala Case: A Round-Up of This Week’s Developments

As allegations of mass burials in the Dharmasthala temple stir national debate, the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s order lifting a gag is being seen as a significant step for press freedom.

Parmod Kumar: As allegations of mass burials in the Dharmasthala temple stir national debate, the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s order lifting a gag is being seen as a significant step for press freedom.

Supreme Court’s Direction to Trial Court

On Friday, the Supreme Court of India directed a trial court in Karnataka to reconsider, within two weeks, a petition by the Dharmasthala Temple administration seeking to block publication of allegedly defamatory reports in connection with the Dharmasthala mass burials case.

The plea before the apex court challenged the Karnataka High Court’s August 1 order lifting a media gag on the controversial case, which has generated intense online coverage, defamation claims, and widespread public interest.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan questioned whether a blanket media gag was justified under the circumstances.

Origins of the Case

The controversy began after a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple alleged to police that he had been compelled by supervisors to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, over nearly two decades.

The complaint did not name specific individuals as accused, but the revelations sparked public outcry, sustained media attention, and heated online debate. In response, the Karnataka government has set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter.

From Civil Court Gag to High Court Quashing

The case reached the courts when Harshendra Kumar D, Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple administration, filed a defamation suit. He claimed that various media reports and online content were baseless, defamatory, and damaging to the temple’s reputation — especially since no FIR accused him or the temple authorities directly.

In response, a Bengaluru civil court had issued a sweeping gag order restraining nearly 390 media outlets and digital platforms from reporting on the alleged burials and related claims. The order also directed the removal of around 9,000 links, videos, and articles from the internet.

On July 23, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition filed by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging this gag, directing them instead to approach the Karnataka High Court.

On August 1, the Karnataka High Court quashed the civil court’s order, holding that prior restraint on publication is an “extreme measure” permissible only in exceptional circumstances and that the present case did not warrant such a sweeping curb on press freedom.

Fresh Challenge Before the Supreme Court

Following the High Court’s decision, Kumar moved the Supreme Court again, seeking restoration of reporting restrictions and the removal of allegedly defamatory content targeting the temple management.

On Thursday, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai agreed to list the matter for Friday after the petitioner’s counsel sought urgent hearing, citing the “rapid spread” of online content.

Friday’s Hearing: Concerns Over Defamation vs. Press Freedom

Appearing for the temple administration, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that television channels and social media platforms were “day after day” circulating defamatory content. He even displayed certain memes to the bench, claiming they targeted the temple and its management in a derogatory manner.

The Supreme Court bench, while expressing doubt over the need for a gag order, directed the trial court to decide the application for a stay afresh and clarified that “any observations made by the High Court shall not influence the trial court.”