Spunklane Media, which operates the digital news platform The News Minute (TNM), has approached the Karnataka High Court to challenge two ex-parte gag orders issued by lower civil courts in Bengaluru. These orders were passed in connection with defamation suits related to reports on the alleged mass burials at Dharmasthala and the 2012 Sowjanya murder case. TNM has filed writ petitions contesting these orders, asserting that they were passed without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and that they have a chilling effect on press freedom and the right to report on matters of public interest.
In the first case, TNM has challenged an order issued by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The order stemmed from a defamation suit filed by employees of a development project managed by a religious institution in Dharmasthala. Although TNM was not named as a defendant in the suit, the order directed it to remove a specific article and a tweet, applying what is referred to as a 'John Doe' injunction—an order directed at unknown persons. TNM complied under protest but claimed that the plaintiffs later used the order to demand removal of additional unrelated content, including factual reports based on publicly available information and official statements. TNM emphasized that the article in question was based on a First Information Report (FIR) filed with the police and statements made by the Home Minister, asserting that the reporting was legitimate and in public interest.
In the second case, TNM has challenged another gag order issued by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in a separate defamation suit. This order named TNM as one of 338 defendants and broadly prohibited any form of reporting on the Dharmasthala controversy. The court also ordered the removal of over 8,800 pieces of content, including videos, social media posts, news articles, and tweets. TNM contends that this sweeping order failed to distinguish between allegedly defamatory content and fair journalistic reporting. The portal argued that it was not issued any notice before the order was passed and that its reporting merely presented facts without making any allegations of wrongdoing against specific individuals.
The gag orders were issued following a complaint filed by a former sanitation worker who claimed that he had been forced to bury dead bodies of women and children at various locations around Dharmasthala over a span of twenty years. His statement led to the registration of an FIR and sparked widespread media coverage. In response, the plaintiffs, including a close relative of a temple trustee, filed defamation suits seeking to curtail media coverage, which they claimed was based on unverified allegations.
TNM has argued before the High Court that the orders are unconstitutional as they suppress the freedom of the press without due process. The news platform has also pointed to an earlier order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed a similar ex-parte injunction issued against another media platform. In that case, the court held that ex-parte gag orders without proper notice and hearing could not be sustained.
The petitions filed by TNM raise serious questions about the use of John Doe injunctions and ex-parte orders in defamation suits to silence the media. The platform contends that the orders have been misused to block access to legitimate journalism and that they set a dangerous precedent for curtailing press freedoms. It has urged the Karnataka High Court to quash the orders and allow it to restore the removed content.
By bringing these challenges, TNM seeks judicial clarification on the limits of prior restraint in defamation cases and the procedural safeguards that must be followed before issuing broad publication bans. The outcome of these petitions is expected to have wider implications for media freedom and the protection of journalistic reporting in matters involving public interest and official accountability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.