Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The News Minute has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging two ex parte interim injunctions restraining the publication of reports related to the Dharmasthala temple burial case and the murder of 17-year-old Sowjanya.
TNM’s parent company Spunklane Media Private Limited filed two writ petitions alleging that the orders constitute a “serious threat to press freedom” and were obtained through “forum shopping and abuse of process”.
The plea states that the gag order was passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on March 22, in a suit filed by employees of the Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project.
Though TNM was not named as a party, the order invoked the John Doe/Ashok Kumar mechanism to cover unnamed persons. TNM contends that despite the respondents being aware of its identity, they intentionally avoided naming it to secure an ex parte injunction without notice.
A John Doe order, also known as an Ashok Kumar order in India, is a legal order passed by a court against unknown individuals, allowing action against parties whose identities are not yet known. Commonly used in cases of copyright infringement, online anonymity, or widespread illegal activity, these orders help rights holders take preventive or corrective measures when it is impractical to name all violators. Typically issued ex parte due to the urgency and nature of the case, they are valid for a limited time and must be periodically renewed.
‘Abuse of process’
In the petition, TNM states, “This constitutes a deliberate strategy to obtain an ex parte injunction order. The impugned order has been secured by abuse of process and forum shopping.” The petition further says that over 18 months, multiple suits were filed across courts, each seeking broad injunctive reliefs against media houses.
On July 11, 2025, TNM was asked to remove a video titled Forced to bury bodies: Allegations by a sanitation worker from Dharmasthala, based on the March 22 order. The company, in its reply, maintained that it was not a party to the suit and that the video, reporting on a sanitation worker’s police complaint, was factual and not defamatory.
Nonetheless, TNM took down three articles and one tweet “without prejudice”, as they were expressly listed in the suit’s schedule.
In a separate case, the July 18 order passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge named TNM as defendant number 47 among 339 parties and directed the platform to take down “defamatory content” and refrain from future publication.
Challenging this in court, TNM contends that the trial court passed the order without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards under Order 39, Rule 3 of the CPC.
The plea states, “The trial court completely failed to record any findings suggesting why notice to the petitioner was dispensed with.” It further describes the order as a non-speaking one, lacking any reasoning to justify the sweeping restraint on media reporting.
Both petitions assert that TNM’s articles and videos adhere to journalistic standards and are based on factual developments, including official statements, FIRs, and public interest issues. One article cited Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara’s quote: “Let the complainant make a statement, the police will probe,” in response to the sanitation worker's complaint.
The plea also draws strength from a recent Karnataka High Court ruling in favour of YouTube channel Kudla Rampage, where a similar ex parte gag order was quashed. TNM has urged the High Court to extend the same relief to it on the same legal footing.
Harshendra Kumar D, the respondent in one of the suits, is the brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari D Veerendra Heggade. In his suit, he has listed 8,842 alleged defamatory links, including YouTube videos, news articles, tweets, and social media posts.
The Karnataka High Court is expected to hear the petitions in the second week of August.