BENGALURU: A city civil and sessions court on Tuesday passed an ad interim ex-parte temporary injunction order restraining the media, social media and digital platforms from publishing, airing, uploading, transmitting, circulating or sharing the alleged ‘sting operation video’ linking former chief minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah.
Judge B Pushpanjali, XIX Additional City and Sessions Court, passed the order after hearing two interlocutory applications (IA) filed by Siddaramaiah in the original suit filed by him. He prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the spreading of the video dated September 27 available on social media and broadcast on October 2 or its content.
Siddaramaiah said the caption for the video is not a neutral or descriptive introduction, but is deliberately framed to place him at the centre of a sensational political and sexual narrative.
In one IA, he prayed to restrain the media, social media and digital media. In the other, he sought to disable access to or block the impugned videos or publications or URL available in online platforms.
‘Delay, manner of questioning, hidden-camera presentation, politically loaded caption’
“The plaintiff has specifically disputed the authenticity, credibility, intention and the propriety of circulation without verification. Under such circumstances, if the impugned materials, alleged objectionable videos, are shared, circulated, published in the social media, print media, digital platform, TV, will definitely cause immense damage to the dignity, status, position and reputation of the plaintiff -- Siddaramaiah in the public image and privacy of the plaintiff, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. And the very purpose of filing the suit becomes infructuous. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim order of ex-parte temporary injunction,” the court said.
It noted that in view of this order, Siddaramaiah shall comply with the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of CPC and pay the requisite process fee.
Siddaramaiah stated that the allegations in the impugned material strike directly at his personal dignity, reputation and standing in public life. He contended that the video purports to show two men and a woman in a conversation presented as a secret or hidden-camera interaction. The woman is prompted through a series of questions to make grave allegations relating to an alleged incident in or around the year 2011.
“The alleged event is stated to have occurred approximately 15 years prior to the publication; no contemporaneous complaint or independently verifiable material supporting the accusation is displayed in the publication. The delay, the manner of questioning,
the hidden-camera presentation and the politically loaded caption, followed by sudden digital publication, disclose a calculated and malicious design to cause maximum injury to my reputation and political standing. The broadcasting of a programme involving the video by one of the defendants on October 2 repeatedly projects the subject as a major political disclosure involving a senior political leader and as a matter capable of sending tremors through the politics of the state,” it is alleged in the plaint.
