Karnataka High Court Lifts Gag On YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage' In Dharmasthala Burial Case, Civil Court To Take Fresh Call

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (August 01) quashed the ex-parte gag order passed against YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage' in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the trial court order did not mention any alleged defamatory content based on which it was passed, adding that the order granted a "mandatory sweeping injunction". It further said that the order was so broad that it "threatens" any voice against the respondent-plaintiff Harshendra Kumar D, the family or even the place Dharmasthala.For context, a local court in Bengaluru had gagged various media houses and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" against respondent-plaintiff Harshendra Kumar D–brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, his family members, institutions run by the family and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala, following which the channel approached the High Court. The high court order notes that the matter pertains to a complaint by a former sanitation worker who alleged that, he was compelled under mortal threat to "clandestinely bury a multitude of human remains" between 1995-2014 within the sacred precincts of Dharmasthala. The order notes that there were allegations of rape and murder, implicating members linked to the administration of the temple. The High Court today quashed the above order vis-a-vis the Petitioner-channel and directed the civil court to consider the matter afresh. "Petition allowed in part, impugned exp-parte order stands quashed, matter remanded back to consider IA afresh bearing in mind the observation made in the order. This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the suit and contentions," the court said while pronouncing the order.Threatens any voice against plaintiff, familyThe high court in its order observed:"In the case at hand, the Court for the asking, has issued the said order. The order has now cast its net so wide that it threatens to ensnare any voice against the plaintiff, the family or the place. This could not have been issued on bereft of reasons. The order speaks of prohibition of defamatory statements. Not one word of what kind of statements are defamatory for the Court to pass the aforequoted order is found in the order. There is no semblance of reason for the ultimate relief that is granted". The court further observed that the injunction order "while ostensibly couched as an interim measure, in truth and effect, partakes the character of a final determination". The high court said that the trial court, at the threshold and without the benefit of adversarial hearing, has ventured to grant a "sweeping mandatory injunction". "...a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial, a caveat, the observation cannot be construed to be that the competent civil Courts do not have power to grant mandatory injunction, it is only the cautious approach and a reasoned order that is what is expected of a civil Court while granting temporary injunction of the kind that is granted in the case at hand," it added. Application of mind needed, not application of inkThe court further observed that the injunction order though runs into multiple pages, lacks the foundational reason required for grant of such extraordinary relief.It thereafter said:"Mere volume cannot substitute judicial evaluation; nor can length masquerade legal necessity. The reasons are discernible when they are recorded in writing in the order, which would depict application of mind, to grant the extraordinary relief. The order may span pages, but spanning pages has not depicted application of mind. It is application of mind that is required, in a reasoned order, and not application of ink". It further observed that the mandate of the law unequivocally demands that where injunction is granted ex parte, the Court must articulate reasons demonstrating why notice to the opposite party would frustrate the very object of the injunction.Thus partly allowing the plea high court said that ex parte order stands quashed qua defendant No.66/petitioner, and remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to consider the interlocutory applications afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Senior advocate Uday Holla appearing for the respondent Harshendra Kumar D (plaintiff before trial court) had submitted that it was not as if an ex-parte order cannot be granted in the case and questioned the maintainability of the channel's plea. Harshendra is the plaintiff before the trial court.Meanwhile advocate A Velan appearing for the Channel had said that over 300 media outlets and URL links are to be blocked by the sessions court's order; the injunction order violates the petitioner's "part III rights" wherein the "Entire media fraternity has been restrained".BackgroundThe YT channel claimed that the order is a flagrant violation of its fundamental right to freedom of speech and...

Karnataka High Court Lifts Gag On YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage' In Dharmasthala Burial Case, Civil Court To Take Fresh Call

Mustafa Plumber

Tags