Dharmasthala Case: SC Directs YouTube Channel to Approach High Court Before Hearing Media Gag Appeal

YouTube channel Third Eye

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to directly hear a plea filed by the YouTube channel Third Eye, which challenged a Bengaluru court’s order restricting the publication of defamatory content against Harshendra Kumar D. Kumar is the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade and serves as Secretary of the Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple institutions involved in the burial controversy.

Bench Directs Channel To Approach Karnataka High Court First

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, alongside Justices Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, instructed the channel to first file its petition before the Karnataka High Court rather than seeking immediate relief from the apex court.

During the hearing, counsel for Third Eye pointed out, “9,000 video links have been asked to be taken down. This is essentially a gag order.”

To this, CJI Gavai responded firmly, “First go to the High Court and then come here. We cannot discourage our High Courts.”

Allegations Of Judicial Misuse & Press Freedom Violation

The YouTube channel argued that the Bengaluru sessions court’s gag order was obtained by means of judicial misuse and by presenting misleading facts, allegedly by Harshendra Kumar, the plaintiff in the defamation suit.

Third Eye further claimed that this injunction hampers an ongoing high-level criminal investigation by the state into the grave accusations of mass burials and related crimes connected to the influential Dharmasthala temple.

The plea described the order as “a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the fundamental principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21).”

Background

The dispute began when a sanitation worker alleged that he was forced by supervisors to bury several bodies at the Dharmasthala temple. Although he did not identify any individuals involved, the claims generated significant media coverage.

In response, Harshendra Kumar filed a defamation case citing over 8,800 online links—including YouTube videos, Facebook posts, Instagram entries, news reports, Reddit discussions, and tweets—that he claimed contained false and damaging statements about him, his family, and the temple’s institutions.

Court’s Justification For The Restraining Order

The sessions court in Bengaluru, led by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai, issued a sweeping injunction. It barred defendants and unidentified parties from posting or sharing any defamatory content across digital, social, or print platforms pending further hearings. The court also ordered the removal or de-indexing of existing defamatory material.

In its order, the court observed, “While individual reputation is important, defamatory allegations against an institution and its temple affect many people, including employees and students in associated colleges and schools. Even one false defamatory publication could severely disrupt the functioning of these institutions.”

The court noted that earlier FIRs had either led to acquittals or did not mention Kumar or his associated institutions.

Court’s Refusal To Intervene At This Stage

Following the Bengaluru court’s order, Third Eye moved the Supreme Court to challenge the gag. However, the apex court declined to intervene directly, emphasizing the need to first approach the Karnataka High Court.