The Karnataka High Court has stayed further investigation against YouTuber Sameer MD over his video on the alleged mass burials in Dharmasthala.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Sameer seeking to quash the FIR against him. The court directed the State to file its objections after reviewing the video and posted the matter for further hearing on April 22, Bar and Bench reported.
The case relates to a video uploaded on Sameer’s YouTube channel Dhootha, which discussed allegations that a sanitation worker employed by the Dharmasthala temple administration was forced to bury the bodies of women who were sexually assaulted. The video also used AI-generated visuals while narrating these claims and contained references to Veerendra Heggade, head of the Shri Kshetra Dharmasthala temple.
Following the publication of the video, a case was registered against Sameer under Sections 192 (provocation to cause a riot), 240 (providing false information regarding an offence), and 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR, registered at Dharmasthala police station, alleged that the video contained “misleading and fabricated information” that could incite unrest.
Sameer’s counsel, Akshatha Shetty, argued that the video was based on material already in the public domain, including the FIR and complaint in the Dharmasthala case.
Opposing the plea, Additional Special Public Prosecutor Asma Kouser contended that the investigation into the Dharmasthala case is still ongoing and that the YouTuber’s content could mislead the public and create ill will. She also pointed to the use of AI-generated visuals depicting alleged victims, arguing that such material went beyond the official complaint and testimony.
The State further submitted that multiple cases have been registered against Sameer and sought a direction restraining him from publishing further content on the issue. While the court did not pass a formal order to that effect, it orally advised the petitioner’s counsel to caution her client against posting more videos on the pending matter.