Bengaluru Court Restrains 42 Media Houses From Broadcasting 'Honey Trap' Videos Concerning Ex-CM Siddaramaiah, Cites Right To Privacy
A Bengaluru Court on Tuesday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining 42 media houses, including Freedom TV Kannada and a YouTube channel named Karnataka Honey Trap, from disseminating an alleged “honey trap” video concerning former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
The defamation suit primarily concerns a video allegedly uploaded by Defendant No. 2, Karnataka Honey Trap, on September 27, 2026, and subsequently broadcast by Defendant No. 1, Freedom TV Kannada, on October 2, 2026.
Judge B Pushpanjali, while passing the interim orders on applications seeking removal of the videos and blocking of access to them, observed that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court observed:
“The plaintiff has specifically disputed about the authenticity, credibility, intention and the propriety of circulation without verification.... Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of ad-interim order of ex-parte temporary injunction on I.A. No. 1 & 2.”
The plaintiff had submitted that Defendants 3 to 42 comprise print, television, digital and platform entities with substantial reach and the capacity for instantaneous dissemination. It was argued that, without immediate restraint, the allegedly defamatory content could be rapidly disseminated across various media platforms, causing irreparable harm to the former Chief Minister.
After hearing Senior Advocate Vikram Huligal, appearing for Advocate Shathabish Shivann, the Court directed:
“Issue ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order against defendants restraining them, their proprietors, editors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, assigns and all persons claiming through or under them from telecasting, retelecasting, broadcasting, publishing, republishing, uploading, transmitting, circulating, sharing, hosting or otherwise disseminating, in any manner or through any medium whatsoever, the impugned video dated 27.09.2026... and the impugned video/broadcast dated 02.10.2026..., together with the captions accompanying the same, or any part, clip, extract, screenshot, transcript, edited version, reproduction or substantially identical version thereof....”
On the second application seeking blocking of the content on online platforms, the Court further directed the concerned defendants to:
“...forthwith disable access to and/or block the impugned videos/publications... and to restrain the said Defendants from continuing to host, display, transmit or otherwise facilitate dissemination of the aforesaid impugned material through their respective platforms till next date.”
Siddaramaiah has sought damages and a permanent injunction against publication and dissemination of the allegedly defamatory material.
According to the plaint, the YouTube channel uploaded a video titled “Karnataka Honey Trap Nexus Part 1” on September 27, 2026. The plaintiff alleges that its caption was “deliberately framed to place the Plaintiff at the centre of a sensational political and sexual narrative.”
The caption allegedly raised questions linking the plaintiff's resignation as Chief Minister to an alleged honey trap, blackmail and the involvement of the Congress High Command and Rahul Gandhi.
The plaintiff further alleges that the video appears to show a woman making allegations of sexual misconduct against him, allegedly relating to an incident in 2011. The plaint states that the video alleged that the woman was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.
According to the plaint, the recording was presented in a “clandestine or hidden-camera” format to lend it an appearance of authenticity.
Subsequently, on October 2, 2026, Freedom TV Kannada allegedly broadcast a programme titled “LIVE: Biggest CD Blast in Karnataka Politics?” The plaintiff claims that the broadcast significantly amplified the allegations, reaching an audience of several lakhs.
Siddaramaiah has categorically denied the allegations, describing them as baseless. The suit also points to the approximately 15-year gap between the alleged 2011 incident and the publication of the video in 2026, which the plaintiff relies upon to question the veracity of the allegations.
The plaint also cites Chapter II, Verse 34 of the Bhagavad Gita, stating that for a person of honour, ill-fame is worse than death.
According to the plea, as of October 4, 2026, the broadcast had garnered approximately 3.24 lakh views.