BENGALURU, AUGUST 6 2025 – Spunklane Media Private Limited, the parent company of independent news platform The News Minute (TNM), has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging two ex-parte gag orders that it claims are being misused to suppress its reporting on the murder of 17-year-old Sowjanya and the controversial allegations involving the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple.
CASE BACKGROUND AND FIRST GAG ORDER (MARCH 22)
One of the challenged gag orders was issued on March 22, 2025, by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in a suit filed by employees of the Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project.
Although TNM was not made a party to this civil suit, it received legal notices from the plaintiffs invoking the ‘John Doe’ classification, demanding the removal of specific articles and a tweet.
The ‘John Doe’ orders, typically used to restrain unknown entities, were invoked despite TNM being a known entity with an established identity.
While TNM maintains that the content in question was not defamatory, it temporarily took down the articles and tweet “without prejudice” to avoid immediate legal complications.
However, the same March 22 order was later cited again in new takedown requests, this time targeting a video report by TNM.
TNM refused to comply, clarifying that:
The video was not listed in the original court order’s schedule.
The video only reported verifiable facts, including the filing of an FIR and public statements made by officials like the Karnataka Home Minister.
The news portal also stated:
“Despite being fully aware of its identity and having previously litigated against it, the respondents were still trying to harass TNM by asking it to remove content under the ‘John Doe’ classification, without giving it an opportunity to be heard.”
SECOND GAG ORDER (JULY 18) AND MASS CENSORSHIP
In a second petition, TNM has challenged another ex-parte gag order dated July 18, 2025, passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
This time, TNM was explicitly named as Defendant No. 47, alongside 338 other parties, in a sweeping defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, Secretary of the Dharmasthala temple institutions.
The July 18 order restrained TNM from publishing any content related to the Dharmasthala controversy, without prior notice or hearing, which TNM alleges violates Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
TNM argued in its plea:
“The Impugned Order has a serious effect of stifling free speech and consequently has a chilling effect on the Petitioner’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”
The petition emphasized that its reporting:
Did not attribute wrongdoing to any specific individual from the temple administration.
Was based on factual, public interest journalism.
Yet, the respondents are allegedly branding TNM’s content as defamatory in an attempt to secure broad content removals and future publication restraints.
CITING A KEY PRECEDENT: KUDLA RAMPAGE CASE
TNM also relied on a recent judgment by the Karnataka High Court in a similar case involving the YouTube channel Kudla Rampage, in which the same July 18 gag order was quashed by the court.
Drawing from this precedent, TNM has requested similar relief – urging the High Court to quash both the March 22 and July 18 ex-parte gag orders.
MASSIVE DEFAMATION SUIT INVOLVING 8,842 LINKS
The legal backdrop includes a civil defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, following media coverage of explosive allegations by a former sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunathaswamy Temple.
The worker filed a police complaint, claiming that he had been forced to bury numerous bodies, including women, under alleged instructions from his supervisors — a practice that, he claimed, had continued for nearly two decades.
The complaint did not name specific individuals, but it sparked widespread public concern and media coverage, including TNM’s factual reporting on:
The filing of the FIR,
Public reactions, and
Statements by government officials.
In response, the civil defamation suit listed:
8,842 allegedly defamatory links, including:
4,140 YouTube videos
932 Facebook posts
3,584 Instagram posts
108 news articles
37 Reddit posts
41 tweets
LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND APPEAL FOR PRESS FREEDOM
TNM is being represented by Advocate Pradeep Nayak of Keystone Partners in both petitions before the Karnataka High Court.
In both cases, TNM is seeking quashing of the gag orders, restoration of its constitutional right to free speech, and a strong judicial stand against the chilling effect imposed by sweeping and non-specific censorship orders.
