Archive · 23 Jul 2025
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Dharmasthala Gag Order Challenge
Imagine a court in Bengaluru told news outlets not to report anything bad about a temple and its leaders.
Someone challenged this, saying it stops the press from telling the truth about some serious allegations.
They took this challenge to the highest court, but the judges there said, "Go talk to the High Court first."
The person challenging the order believes the court's actions were wrong, especially since it stops people from knowing what happened, and it was issued without hearing all sides of the story.
The gag order was initially made to stop people from sharing content that was unflattering of a temple, its leader, their family, and the institutions that they managed.
Supreme Court refused to hear a petition challenging a gag order from a Bengaluru court.
The gag order restricts media from publishing defamatory content related to the Dharmasthala temple and its management.
The Supreme Court advised the petitioner to approach the High Court instead.
The gag order was issued 'ex parte' and directed removal of numerous news links.
The petition argued the gag order obstructed investigation into alleged crimes linked to the temple.
- Who
- The Supreme Court and a petitioner challenging a gag order.
- What
- The Supreme Court refused to hear a petition against a gag order issued by a Bengaluru court.
- When
- The Supreme Court passed the order on Wednesday.
- Where
- The case originated in Bengaluru and was brought before the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The petitioner argued the gag order was an abuse of the judicial process and obstructed investigations.
Petitioner's Perspective
Court's Perspective
Judicial Process
Petitioner's Perspective
The gag order abuses the judicial process.
Court's Perspective
The opposing side believes the order was necessary to prevent the spread of defamatory content.
Freedom of Speech
Petitioner's Perspective
The gag order is an assault on freedom of speech and press.
Court's Perspective
The order was in place to protect the reputation of those who may be affected by the allegations being made.
Investigation Interference
Petitioner's Perspective
The order obstructed high-level state investigation.
Court's Perspective
The opposing side did not want to comment on the investigation and the related allegations.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Gag Order Location
- Bengaluru
- Gag Order Issued By
- 11th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court
- Date of Gag Order
- July 21
- Subject of Gag Order
- Dharmasthala temple, Dr D. Veerendra Heggade, family members, institutions
- Petitioner's Argument
- Abuse of judicial process; obstruction of investigation