Dharmasthala ‘secret burials': Judge who issued media gag order recuses from hearing case
The recusal comes in the wake of an application by a journalist indicating that the judge is an alumni of an institution operated by the temple administration. On Monday, the principal sessions judge allowed the 10th additional city civil and sessions judge Vijaya Kumar Rai to recuse himself from hearing the original suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D on behalf of the family.
'Pursuant to the request made by this court to transfer this suit to any other court, the Honourable Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge has withdrawn this suit and transferred to the court of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law as per the notification…dated 04.08.2025,' judge Rai said in an order on Monday.
'In view of this, the registry shall forward the entire records of this case to the XVII Addl.City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16),' he said.
The judge had passed a gag order on media reports about the family members of the temple administration amid a public controversy that has gripped the temple town following a former sanitation worker's allegations that he was forced to bury several dead bodies in the region during the 1995-2014 period.
The Karnataka High Court had also recently referred the July 18 gag order of the civil court back to the court on account of its blanket nature, rather than merely restricting defamatory reporting against the Sree Dharmasthala temple administration.
The recusal comes after journalist Naveen Soorinje, who is defendant number 25 of the 240 media outlets and activists named in the suit, indicated a conflict of interest for the court on account of the judge having studied at SDM Law College 25 years ago.
Earlier, the Bengaluru civil court had granted an ex parte injunction to 'delete/de-index' a total of 8,812 links on various platforms related to the Dharmasthala secret burials case. The injunction order on July 18 was based on a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of BJP MP D Veerendra Heggade and secretary of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society.
The petition had sought directions to 'remove/delete/deindex the unverified false, baseless, reckless and defamatory allegations' against the plaintiff, his brother Heggade and his family members, the temple, and the institutions run by them.
On August 1, the Karnataka High Court quashed the gag order with reference to the Mangaluru-based online media channel Kudla Rampage, stating that the civil court 'has ventured to grant a sweeping mandatory injunction, a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
BJP MP's remark on Gaya airport triggers row
New Delhi A BJP MP's complaint that Gaya International Airport's three-letter code 'GAY' is 'socially and culturally offensive' has sparked backlash from LGBTQ activists who say his remarks reinforce prejudice against the community. BJP MP's remark on Gaya airport triggers row Rajya Sabha member Bhim Singh from Bihar submitted a written query to Parliament questioning why the International Air Transport Association (IATA) code for the Bihar airport remains in use when people find it 'uncomfortable'. He asked whether the government would consider changing it to 'a more respectful and culturally appropriate code' and sought a timeline for any such process. The ministry of civil aviation acknowledged receiving similar requests in the past. Minister of state for civil aviation Murlidhar Mohol explained that the three-letter codes are assigned by IATA—a trade association representing 300 airlines—to uniquely identify airports worldwide, typically using the first three letters of the location's name. 'Air India had earlier approached IATA seeking change of the existing airport code,' Mohol said. 'However, IATA has conveyed that under the provisions of Resolution 763, assigned three-letter codes are considered permanent and are altered only under exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns.' The response did not elaborate on when Air India made the request or who were the other entities. LGBTQ activists condemned Singh's characterisation of the code as offensive, arguing it reflects deep-rooted prejudice rather than legitimate cultural concerns. Arvind Narrain, an LGBTQ activist, pointed to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that decriminalised same-sex relationships and recognised LGBTQI persons' right to dignity. 'The member's description of us as immoral strips the community of dignity,' he said. 'They need to educate themselves that as per the Supreme Court, what governs is not personal morality but constitutional morality. He should apologise to the community.' Rajesh Srinivas, another LGBTQ activist, dismissed the need for any change. 'The airport code does not require a change as there is nothing culturally inappropriate about it. The discomfort with the term stems from deeply ingrained prejudice.' Shanmathi Senthil Kumar, a counselling psychologist and diversity advocate who has worked in mental health and social sectors, called Singh's framing 'deeply concerning'. 'That the term 'GAY' is being labelled as offensive, culturally inappropriate, or even unsafe reflects how deeply rooted the stigma against LGBTQIA+ people still is,' Kumar said. 'Such framing reinforces harmful stereotypes and makes society even more difficult and exclusionary for queer individuals. This highlights the urgent need to centre and prioritise LGBTQIA+ voices in public discourse, so that narratives rooted in prejudice are not allowed to define what is deemed acceptable.' 'If we look at how the queer community is perceived in India, we still have a long way to go. There is a lack of awareness, and that fact should not be ignored. If a word is considered offensive, simply avoiding it doesn't help. One way forward is to confront and address it, rather than shy away from it. The question raised is also aiming in that direction—if someone like an MP can endorse inclusion rather than avoid the issue, it becomes all the more meaningful,' psychotherapist Vidya Dinakaran said.
News18
16 minutes ago
- News18
Important cases listed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Aug 6
Last Updated: Important cases listed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Aug 6: * SC to hear a plea of DMK government against Madras High Court order asking it not to use name and pictures of CM and other leaders in state's welfare schemes. * SC to hear pleas against various provisions of the PMLA. * SC to hear a plea of former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Kumar Baghel. *SC to hear a plea of YouTuber Elvish Yadav in a criminal case. * SC to hear a case related to Bihar Cricket Association. * SC to hear a plea of Samajwadi party leader Mohd Azam Khan in a criminal case. * SC to hear a plea of Pune-based builder Avinash Bhosale in a money-laundering case. PTI SJK VN VN Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Former BJP Spokesperson Appointed Bombay HC Judge; Oppn Slams Move: 'Blow To Democracy'
Arati Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve impartiality of the judiciary The appointment of Advocate Arati Sathe as a judge of the Bombay High Court stirred political controversy in Maharashtra, following revelations that she had previously served as the official spokesperson for the Maharashtra unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on July 28, approved the elevation of Ajit Bhagwantrao Kadehankar, Arati Arun Sathe, and Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar as judges of the Bombay High Court. Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition leaders, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader and MLA Rohit Pawar voiced strong objections, sharing a screenshot of a letter issued on Maharashtra BJP letterhead naming Sathe as the party's spokesperson — a post she herself had acknowledged on social media. Pawar described the appointment as a serious threat to democratic principles. 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy," he said. 'Such appointments will have far-reaching consequences on the impartiality of the Indian judicial system." He further cited concerns about the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. 'Doesn't the appointment of a political spokesperson as a judge undermine the principle of separation of powers and, by extension, constitute an attempt to subvert the Constitution?" he asked. Highlighting the broader implications, Pawar stated: 'When a person appointed as a judge in a High Court has a political background and has held a position in the ruling party, who can guarantee that the process of delivering justice will not be tainted by political bias? Doesn't the appointment of a single political figure raise questions about the entire process of justice delivery?" While clarifying that he had no objection to Sathe's legal qualifications, Pawar said the issue lies in public perception and trust in judicial impartiality. 'The appointment of such a person strikes at the sentiment of ordinary citizens that 'justice is delivered without any bias,'" he added, urging the government to reconsider the decision. 'The Honorable Chief Justice should also provide guidance on this matter." BJP Counters Responding to the controversy, Maharashtra BJP media cell in-charge Navnath Bang confirmed that Sathe had been a spokesperson for the party. However, he emphasised that she had resigned from the role prior to her judicial appointment. Further, Maharashtra BJP's chief spokesperson Keshav Upadhye asked the Congress and Rohit Pawar to answer a few questions. 'Justice Baharul Islam was elected to the Rajya Sabha in April 1962 as a Congress candidate. He was re-elected to the Rajya Sabha in 1968. During this time, he also contested the Assam Legislative Assembly elections but was defeated." 'In 1972, he resigned from the Rajya Sabha and was appointed as a judge of the Gauhati High Court. In March 1980, he retired from the judiciary and re-entered politics," Upadhye said in a clear swipe at the Congress. 'After his retirement, Indira Gandhi's government appointed him as a judge of the Supreme Court in December 1980. In 1983, after he acquitted the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, in a corruption case and faced criticism for it; he resigned from the post of judge. Subsequently, in the same year (1983), the Congress party appointed him again to the Rajya Sabha," he added. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : BJP Bombay HC maharashtra view comments First Published: August 06, 2025, 08:56 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
