Bengaluru civil court restrains media from publishing defamatory contents against Harshendra Kumar, Veerendra Heggade, their family members and institutions

A city civil and sessions court has passed mandatory injunction against hundreds of individuals and several media platforms, including print, television, digital and social media, from transmitting and telecasting “false, reckless, baseless and defamatory videos and other contents” against Harshendra Kumar D., his family members, including his elder brother D. Veerendra Heggade of Dharmasthala temple, and their institutions in connection with the “mass burial” case.

Anitha M., judge of the 17th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, passed the interim order on August 28 after hearing a fresh suit, filed by plaintiff Mr. Kumar, based on a recent direction issued by the Supreme Court.

The judge watched videos, uploaded on various digital and social media platforms against Mr. Kumar and others as reports on mass burial allegations, played on laptop in the open court by the plaintiff’s advocate S. Rajashekar.

Background of case

Mr. Kumar had filed the suit on July 18 seeking ex parte temporary injunctions against 338 defendants. The civil court on July 18 had passed an ex parte temporary injunction restraining 338 defendants and even any “unknown persons” from publishing defamatory contents against Mr. Kumar and others, besides ordering removal and de-indexing of 8,842 weblinks that allegedly contained defamatory contents against Mr. Kumar and his family members and their institutions.

However, a YouTube channel, Third Eye, questioned this ex parte order before the Supreme Court, which asked the channel to first approach the High Court. Later, another YouTube channel, Mangaluru-based Kudla Rampage, filed a petition before the High Court against the July 18 injunction by the civil court.

What HC said

The High Court, in its August 1 verdict, set aside the civil court’s injunction and remitted the matter back to civil court by pointing out that ex parte injunction order “lacked the foundational reason required for grant of such extraordinary relief as an ex parte interim injunction”.

Mr. Kumar challenged the High Court’s order before the apex court, which on August 8 asked the civil court to consider the plea for injunction afresh within two weeks without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court.