Why did the top Court refuse to gag mediain the Dharmasthala case?
As allegations of mass burials in the Dharmasthala temple stirs national debate, the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the HC’s order lifting a gag order is a step in the right direction for press freedom.
Parmod Kumar
10 August 2025
THE SUPREME COURT OF FRIDAY directed a trial court in Karnataka to reconsider, within two weeks, a petition by the Dharmasthala Temple administration seeking to block publication of allegedly defamatory reports in connection with the Dharmasthala mass burials case. The plea in the top Court was challenging a recent Karnataka High Court order that lifted a media gag on the controversial Dharmasthala mass burial case, which has triggered intense online coverage and defamation claims.
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan questioned whether a media gag was justified in the circumstances.
How the case came about
The burial case itself stems from allegations made by a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple, who told police that he had been compelled by his supervisors to bury numerous bodies, including those of women, over a span of nearly two decades. While the complaint did not name any specific individuals as accused in a crime, the revelations prompted public outcry, sustained media coverage, and sharp online debate.
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Karnataka government has set up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.
The petition before the Supreme Court has been filed by Harshendra Kumar D, Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple administration, challenging the High Court’s August 1 order that had quashed an earlier gag directive issued by a Bengaluru civil court.
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan questioned whether a media gag was justified in the circumstances.
The trial court had restrained media organisations from reporting on the alleged murder and burial of women near the Dharmasthala temple in Karnataka’s Dakshina Kannada district.
The sweeping gag order had directed nearly 390 media outlets and digital platforms to remove close to 9,000 online links, videos, and articles that were allegedly defamatory and damaging to the temple’s reputation.
The civil court passed the order in response to a defamation suit filed by Kumar, who claimed that the online content was baseless and maligning the temple and its managing family without any specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR.