Dharmasthala burial row: SC refuses to gag media from covering case
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, however, directed a trial court in Karnataka to decide afresh the plea filed by the secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple seeking removal of what he alleged was defamatory content targeting the family managing the temple.
The top court noted gag orders were passed only in extremely rare cases and asked the petitioner to place all materials before the trial court.
The bench clarified it hadn't expressed opinion on the merits of the matter
The high court on August 1 set aside a gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court restraining reportage on the burial case.
The gag order was over reports on the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala in the state's Dakshina Kannada district.
The petitioner's lawyer alleged around 8,000 YouTube channels were running defamatory material against the temple.
Harshendra Kumar D, Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple body, moved the apex court seeking removal of the alleged defamatory content.
On July 23, the CJI-led bench declined to hear another petition filed by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging a sweeping gag order that restrained media houses from reporting on matters related to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade of Dharamsthala in Karnataka.
The plea, filed against an ex parte interim order of a local court, questioned the legality of the directive which directed as many as 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 links and stories related to the Dharamsthala burial case.
The gag order was passed in Kumar's defamation suit alleging spread of false and defamatory online content, despite the absence of specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR.
Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara recently said a thorough investigation must precede any conclusions regarding the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala.
The state government has constituted a special investigation team to probe the allegations.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Bihar SIR row: 'Not bound by rules' to disclose voters excluded from draft roll, ECI tells SC
NEW DELHI: Opposing the application filed by ADR seeking the publication of a list of persons not included in the draft roll, the Election Commission of India (ECI) -- by filing an affidavit -- told the Supreme Court that it was not bound by the Rules to publish a separate list of persons not included in the draft electoral roll. The apex court's two-judge bench, headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi, is scheduled to hear on August 12, Tuesday, a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Bihar SIR. This was the third affidavit filed by the Commission in response to a notice to the Supreme Court on an application filed by NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claiming 65 lakh voters in Bihar during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls have been left without disclosing reasons. "It is not required under the Rules to furnish the reasons for the non-inclusion of persons in the draft Roll. It has shared the draft roll with the political parties," the ECI in its fresh affidavit told the apex court. The persons not included in the draft have the option of submitting a declaration for inclusion. Pleading to the SC for dismissing the batch of pleas in Bihar SIR issue, the ECI clarified that such electors would be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and furnishing of relevant documents. "As a matter of policy and in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, no deletion of any elector's name from the draft electoral roll of Bihar published on August 1, 2025, as part of the Special Intensive Revision, would be undertaken without issuance of a prior notice and passing of a reasoned and speaking order by the competent authorit," the ECI told the apex court. Dismissing the allegations, the EC, in an additional affidavit filed on Saturday, said, the safeguards against deletion have been reinforced by a robust two-tier appeal mechanism prescribed under the relevant rules, thereby ensuring that every elector has adequate recourse against any adverse action. "The petitioners in the Bihar SIR case are attempting to mislead the court. The petitioners have come to court with unclean hands and deserve heavy costs to be imposed upon them," the ECI said.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
D.K. Shivakumar says Centre contributing only 20% to Bengaluru Metro Yellow Line
Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar on Sunday (August 10, 2025) accused the BJP-led Central government of contributing only 20% towards the cost of the Namma Metro Yellow Line, claiming the State government had borne the remaining 80%. In some instances, he said, the Centre's share was as low as 11%. PM Modi in Bengaluru: Follow LIVE updates on August 10, 2025 Speaking to reporters before the inauguration of Namma Metro's Yellow Line by Prime minister Narendra Modi, Mr. Shivakumar urged Mr. Modi to sanction at least ₹1 lakh crore for Bengaluru's development. He said the State had funded the entire land acquisition for the project, despite the Centre being expected to contribute 50%. 'Even though Bengaluru is the country's second-highest tax-paying city, the grants we receive are minimal,' he said. Comparing tax allocations, he pointed out that Ahmedabad receives a 20% share, while Bengaluru gets only 10%. 'We should be treated like other major cities and considered alongside the national capital,' he said, adding that his appeal was non-political. Mr. Shivakumar also criticised Karnataka's BJP MPs, alleging they had failed to secure even ₹10 in grants for the State. 'Posting on X and appearing in photos is not an achievement. BJP MPs should focus on bringing funds instead of playing politics,' he said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
No deletion in Bihar voter roll without notice, reasoned order: EC to SC
The Election Commission has told the Supreme Court that there would be no deletion of any voter's name from the draft electoral roll in Bihar without issuance of prior notice, affording opportunity of being heard and a reasoned order. The poll panel also said that statutory framework does not require it to prepare or share any separate list of names of people not included in the draft electoral rolls, or publish the reasons for non-inclusion of anyone in the draft rolls for any reason. The EC filed an additional affidavit in the apex court on Saturday, days after it came out with the much-anticipated draft electoral rolls in Bihar, enlisting 7.24 crore voters but knocking off more than 65 lakh names, claiming that most of the persons concerned had died or migrated. Separately, the EC also filed its reply to an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the poll panel to publish a full and final assembly constituency and part/booth wise list of names and details of approximately 65 lakh electors whose enumeration forms were not submitted along with reasons for non-submission. A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant is hearing the pleas against the EC's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. In its additional affidavit, the poll panel said the first stage of SIR was completed and draft electoral roll was duly published on August 1. "It is further submitted that, as a matter of policy and in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, no deletion of any elector's name from the draft electoral roll, published on August 1, 2025, shall be undertaken without: (i) issuance of a prior notice to the concerned elector indicating the proposed deletion and the grounds thereof, (ii) affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and furnishing relevant documents, and (iii) passing of a reasoned and speaking order by the competent authority," it said. It said these safeguards are further reinforced by a robust two-tier appeal mechanism prescribed under the relevant rules, thereby ensuring that every elector has adequate recourse against any adverse action. The EC said to ensure that no wrongful deletion from the draft rolls was carried out, strict directions were issued to prevent deletion without notice and a speaking order by the competent authority, with provision for appeals under section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The poll panel said it is taking every possible step to ensure that no eligible elector is excluded from the electoral roll. In its separate reply, the poll panel said, "It is submitted that the statutory framework does not require the respondent (EC) to prepare or share any separate list of names of people not included in the draft electoral rolls, or publish the reasons for non-inclusion of anyone in the draft electoral rolls for any reason". "As neither the law nor guidelines provide for preparation or sharing of any such list of previous electors whose enumeration form is not received for any reason during the enumeration phase, no such list can be sought by the petition as a matter of right," it said. The poll panel said exclusion of a name from draft electoral roll does not amount to deletion of an individual from electoral rolls. It said draft roll simply showed that duly filled enumeration form of existing electors has been received during enumeration phase. "But, on account of human involvement in execution of this exercise of scale, there is always a possibility that an exclusion or inclusion might surface due to inadvertence or error," it said. The EC said prior to publication of draft electoral roll, it had directed the CEO and others to share with political parties the booth-level list of individuals whose enumeration forms were not received due to any reason and seek their assistance for reaching out to them. It alleged that the petitioner's approach was consistent with its earlier attempts to malign EC by building false narratives on digital, print and social media. "Such attempts should be appropriately dealt with by this court, and heavy costs should be imposed for petitioner's attempts to deliberately mislead this court," it said. The poll panel said admittedly, after the publication of draft rolls, political parties were supplied with an updated list of names of electors not included in draft roll so as to ensure that all attempts are made to reach out to them. "The political parties have acknowledged receipt of the said list," it said. The EC said, "In yet another attempt to mislead this court, the petitioners emphatically assert that a person whose name has been excluded from the draft roll has no recourse to a remedy as he/she cannot file a claim or objection". Referring to detailed guidelines of SIR order of June 24, the poll panel said it expressly provides for inclusion of individuals whose enumeration forms have not been submitted within the specified time. On August 6, the apex court had asked the EC to furnish by August 9 the details of around 65 lakh electors left out from the draft electoral rolls. NGO 'Association For Democratic Reforms', which has challenged the EC's June 24 order directing for SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, has filed a fresh application seeking direction to publish names of around 65 lakh deleted voters with the mention whether they are dead, permanently migrated or not considered for any other reason.
