Dharmasthala Burial Allegations: Bengaluru Court Restrains Media, Orders Content Takedown

Bengaluru: In a significant development surrounding the Dharmasthala burial controversy, a Bengaluru court has restrained several media outlets and digital platforms from publishing or circulating content deemed defamatory against Harshendra Kumar D, brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade.

The order was issued by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai, following a defamation suit filed by the Secretary of the Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple. The case stems from media reports referencing allegations made by a sanitation worker who claimed he had been forced by temple supervisors to bury several bodies. However, the worker did not name Kumar or the Heggade family.

Taking note of the potential reputational impact, the court observed that even unverified allegations could damage the standing of the temple and its wide network of institutions, including colleges and schools. “When an allegation is made against the institution, and temple, it affects a wider range of people including the employees and students... even a single false and defamatory publication would seriously affect the functioning of the institutions,” the order stated.

The court directed the removal or de-indexing of thousands of links that Kumar claimed were defamatory. He submitted a list of 8,842 such links, including YouTube videos, Facebook and Instagram posts, news articles, and social media commentary. Kumar also pointed out that no police complaint or FIR had named him or the temple trust, and that he had been acquitted in a prior case.

The restraining order also includes a John Doe injunction, intended to prevent unidentified individuals from sharing or spreading similar content online. This type of order is increasingly used in high-profile defamation cases to cover not only named respondents but future publishers as well.

The court emphasised the need to balance freedom of speech with protection from defamation, calling the case an "exceptional" one involving reputational harm without formal legal charges.

While the judiciary has not curtailed general reporting on the case, the broad scope of the restraining order may have implications for how sensitive allegations involving powerful institutions are covered by the media, especially in the digital space.

The matter will come up for further hearing on August 5.