Bengaluru: In a sweeping ex-parte order, a city civil court has ordered the immediate takedown of 8,842 online links, including YouTube videos and Instagram posts, allegedly containing serious allegations made by a sanitary worker about burial of bodies in Dharmasthala.The court also issued an ex-parte temporary injunction prohibiting media outlets from publishing or sharing content related to petitioner Harshendra Kumar D, brother of the Dharmadhikari of the Dharmasthala Sri Manjunathaswamy temple.The links to be deleted and deindexed included 4,149 YouTube videos and 3,584 Instagram posts apart from reports published by newspapers and posts made on Reddit.Monday’s order, passed by additional city civil & sessions judge Vijaya Kumar Rai stated: “Defendants, their… representatives or any persons claiming on behalf of them are restrained from publishing, circulating, forwarding, uploading, transmitting, and telecasting any defamatory contents and information against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff, and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala, either in the digital media including YouTube channels, all social media, or print media of any kind until the next date of hearing.““The defendants must delete all defamatory content against the plaintiff, family members, associated institutions, and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala, across digital and print media until further orders,” the order added. The next hearing is scheduled for Aug 5.The plaintiff had requested restraining orders against the defendants from sharing false information during the suit’s pendency. Additionally, he sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of specified defamatory content from digital platforms. The court acknowledged the need to balance constitutional rights of speech and defamation claims.A new FIR regarding the burial of bodies in Dharmasthala contains no direct allegations against the plaintiff or his family members. However, defendants continue making unsubstantiated claims affecting the reputation of institutions employing 75,000 people and educating 45,000 students, the suit stated. The court determined that false allegations could significantly impact the institutional functioning. While acknowledging the defendants’ right to legal recourse, the court emphasised protecting reputations from baseless claims.The interim order also referenced Supreme Court cases of Hammad Ahmed v Abdul Majeed (2019) and Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden (1990), noting that defamatory content had already reached one million people. The court concluded this was an exceptional case warranting ex-parte orders, finding strong prima facie grounds and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. |
