BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed by a sessions court in the city, which had restrained a Dakshina Kannada-based digital media house from allegedly reporting defamatory news linking the family members of Harshendra Kumar D and the temple administration to the alleged burying of multiple human remains for nearly two decades in Dharmasthala.
However, the court remitted the matter to the sessions court with a direction to consider the interlocutory applications afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order while partly allowing the petition filed by Kudla Rampage, which challenged the legality of the injunction order dated 18 July, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru.
Making clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the civil suit pending before the sessions court, or on the criminal proceedings or the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations, the High Court said that all the contentions, except the one considered in this petition, shall remain open. It also directed the petitioner and other parties to extend their full cooperation to the sessions court in passing the necessary orders.
The petitioner was one among the 338 defendants before the sessions court, which passed the ex-parte injunction order restraining allegedly defamatory reporting against the plaintiff—Harshendra Kumar, his family, the temple administration, and its affiliated institutions.
The sessions court had also directed the removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court, questioning the legality of the said order.
‘John Doe’ order could not have been issued without assigning reasons, says HC
Meanwhile, the High Court observed that the sessions court had issued an order of John Doe, a placeholder name traditionally used in the USA for unknown defendants. ‘Ashok Kumar’ is the adaptation in the Indian legal system.
Such an order must be wielded with great care and judicious foresight, as it is extended to unidentified persons and carries the risk of overbreadth, which may result in infringing upon someone’s rights.
“Therefore, in this case, the sessions court, for the asking, has issued the said order. The order has now cast its net so wide that it threatens to ensnare any voice against the plaintiff, the family, or the place. This could not have been issued without any reason. However, there is no resemblance of reason for the ultimate relief that was granted by the sessions court,” the High Court observed.