By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Disclaimer.
Accept
Lawyer's ArcLawyer's ArcLawyer's Arc
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Opportunity
    • Paid Law Internships
    • Internships
    • Jobs
    • Events & Workshops
    • Moot Court
    • Call For Papers
  • Editorials
  • Case Analysis
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Refund and Cancellation Policy
    • Terms of Service
  • Submit Blog
  • My Interests
Reading: SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ENTERTAIN PLEA BY THIRD EYE YOUTUBE CHANNEL AGAINST GAG ORDER IN DHARMASTHALA BURIAL CASE
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Font ResizerAa
Lawyer's ArcLawyer's Arc
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Case Analysis
  • Subject Notes
    • LAW OF TORT
    • Constitution Law
    • CRIMINAL LAW
    • Family law
    • Contract Law
    • IPR
    • international law
    • Banking law
    • COMPANY LAW
    • CYBER LAW
    • Environmental law
  • Jobs
  • Opportunity
    • Internships
    • Paid Law Internships
    • Events & Workshops
  • Editorials
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Refund and Cancellation Policy
    • Terms of Service
    • Submit Blog Post
  • Customize Interests
Follow US
© Lawyer's Arc 2020-2026. All Rights Reserved.
Lawyer's Arc > SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ENTERTAIN PLEA BY THIRD EYE YOUTUBE CHANNEL AGAINST GAG ORDER IN DHARMASTHALA BURIAL CASE

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ENTERTAIN PLEA BY THIRD EYE YOUTUBE CHANNEL AGAINST GAG ORDER IN DHARMASTHALA BURIAL CASE

Last updated: 23/07/2025 7:05 PM
Published 23/07/2025
Share
3 Min Read
From Google Supreme Court
SHARE

DELHI | 23RD JULY 2025 – The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday declined to directly entertain a plea by the YouTube channel Third Eye, which challenged a Bengaluru sessions court’s gag order restraining the publication of any alleged defamatory content against Harshendra Kumar D, the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, in connection with the ongoing Dharmasthala temple burial case.

SC URGES CHANNEL TO APPROACH KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FIRST

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai along with Justices Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi refused to hear the petition directly and advised the petitioner to approach the Karnataka High Court first.

“First go to the High court and then come here. We cannot discourage our High Courts,”

-Story After Advertisement -

— CJI BR Gavai

THIRD EYE YOUTUBE CHANNEL’S CHALLENGE TO THE GAG ORDER

Counsel for Third Eye argued that the order amounted to a gag on the press and violated freedom of speech:

“9,000 video links have been asked to be taken off. This is a gag order,”

-Story After Advertisement -

The YouTube channel further contended in its plea:

“It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21).”

They alleged that the gag order was obtained through calculated abuse of judicial process and misrepresentation by the plaintiff, Harshendra Kumar.

-Story After Advertisement -

BACKGROUND: DHARMASTHALA TEMPLE BURIAL ALLEGATIONS

The case emerged following sensational media reports about allegations made by a sanitation worker, who claimed to have buried multiple bodies at the Dharmasthala temple premises under duress. He alleged he was threatened by supervisors, though no specific individuals were named in the FIR.

DEFAMATION SUIT FILED BY HARSHENDRA KUMAR

In response, Harshendra Kumar, who is the Secretary of Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple Institutions, filed a defamation suit highlighting the spread of allegedly false content across platforms.

He submitted a list of 8,842 online links, including:

-Story After Advertisement -

4,140 YouTube videos

932 Facebook posts

3,584 Instagram posts

-Story After Advertisement -

108 news articles

37 Reddit posts

41 tweets

The content allegedly targeted Kumar, his family, and temple institutions, despite no mention of them in FIRs or any ongoing criminal charges.

BENGALURU COURT’S INJUNCTION AND RATIONALE

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai issued a temporary restraining order against the publication of any defamatory content on digital, social, or print media. The judge also issued a mandatory injunction for the removal or de-indexing of already published defamatory material.


Related

You Might Also Like

Supreme Court Stays Firm on 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judges, Extends Application Deadline to April 30

Supreme Court delivered Landmark Judgement on Allowing Passive Euthanasia for Man in 13-Year Vegetative State

US Mulls 500% Tariff Shock On India Amid Growing Tensions Over Russian Oil

Justice Surya Kant Take Oath as 53rd Chief Justice Of India

Delhi HC Bans Barring Law Students From Exams Over Attendance Shortfall, Directs BCI to Overhaul Norms

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.
[mc4wp_form]
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Share

Updates Just a Click Away ! Follow Us

InstagramFollow
TelegramFollow
1.2kFollow
1.6kFollow

Join Telegram Channel

Join Whatsapp Channel

Lawyer's Arc Logo

Hey! Lawyer's Archian

One click. One opportunity closer to your legal hustle.
[mc4wp_form]
In Trend
LAW OF TORT

False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Under Tort

LA | Admin
LA | Admin
18/03/2024
Internship Opportunity at Lawyer’s Arc
Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 : The Future of Advocacy in India
Download AIBE 19 Result Live : How & Where to Download Result Aibe XIX
- Advertisement -
Submit Post LAwyer's ArcSubmit Post LAwyer's Arc
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Archives
False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Under Tort
18/03/2024
Lawyer's Arc Internship
Internship Opportunity at Lawyer’s Arc
23/04/2025
Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
18/03/2024
Advocates Amendment Bill
Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 : The Future of Advocacy in India
22/02/2025
AIBE 19 RESULT DOWNLOAD
Download AIBE 19 Result Live : How & Where to Download Result Aibe XIX
23/03/2025

You Might Also Like

Advocate-Client Privilege is Sacrosanct: Supreme Court bars Investigators from summoning lawyers solely for client case details under Section 132 BSA

Pankaj Pandey
Pankaj Pandey
02/11/2025

BCI Suspends Advocate for Throwing shoe at CJI B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court

Pankaj Pandey
Pankaj Pandey
06/10/2025

SC QUASHES CRUELTY, ABETMENT CHARGES AGAINST IN-LAWS: “VAGUE AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS” AMOUNT TO ABUSE OF PROCESS

Pankaj Pandey
Pankaj Pandey
01/10/2025

Supreme Court: Advocates Not Liable for Affidavit Contents

Pankaj Pandey
Pankaj Pandey
01/10/2025
Previous Next
Lawyer's ArcLawyer's Arc
© Lawyer's Arc 2020-2026. All Rights Reserved.
Hey Lawyer's Archian !
One click. One opportunity closer to your legal hustle.
[mc4wp_form]
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?