Kudla Rampage vs Sri Harshendra Kumar D

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, a digital media journalist, challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction dated 18-07-2025 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5185 of 2025. The suit was filed by the first respondent against 338 defendants alleging defamation arising out of media reportage of allegations made by a former sanitation worker concerning clandestine burial of human remains within the precincts of Dharmasthala temple, as well as allegations of rape and murder implicating persons linked to the temple administration. The impugned order, passed on the same day as the application, restrained publication of any defamatory content against the plaintiff, his family, the temple administration and affiliated institutions, and directed removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links.

The petitioner contended that the injunction, being mandatory in nature, could not be granted ex parte at the interlocutory stage and was passed in violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of the CPC without recording reasons. It was further urged that the order constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and that the John Doe directions created a perpetual and boundless gag order on a matter of public importance.

The first respondent raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC was the appropriate remedy before the Miscellaneous First Appeal Court, and that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was therefore not entertainable. The court reserved the matter for orders after hearing both sides.

Catchwords: writ petition · ex parte injunction · prior restraint · freedom of speech and expression · Article 19(1)(a) · defamation · media reporting · digital media · John Doe order · Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC · Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC · maintainability · Article 227 · Dharmasthala temple · de-indexing of URLs · public interest · mandatory injunction · interlocutory stage