N※N

Show Media and Entertainment Publications

Dharmasthala: SC refuses to entertain plea challenging media gag order

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge Against Media Gag Order in Dharmasthala Case

Bengaluru, India – In a significant development that underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to media regulations in sensitive religious and cultural matters, the Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a petition challenging a media gag order related to the Dharmasthala temple complex. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala, highlights the ongoing tensions between freedom of the press and the need to maintain public order in cases involving revered institutions like Dharmasthala, a prominent pilgrimage site in Karnataka.

The plea in question was filed by a group of journalists and media organizations, who argued that the gag order imposed by a lower court infringed upon their constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners contended that the order, which prohibits any reporting or discussion on certain aspects of an ongoing dispute at the Dharmasthala Manjunatha Temple, was overly broad and amounted to prior restraint on the media. They sought the Supreme Court's intervention to quash the directive, emphasizing that such restrictions could set a dangerous precedent for journalistic freedom in the country.

However, the apex court bench, while acknowledging the importance of press freedom, expressed reluctance to interfere at this stage. Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the bench, noted that the matter was still pending before the Karnataka High Court, and it would be premature for the Supreme Court to step in without exhausting lower judicial remedies. "We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 at this juncture," the bench stated, advising the petitioners to pursue their case through the appropriate channels in the high court. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, where it has increasingly emphasized the principle of judicial hierarchy and the avoidance of bypassing lower courts unless there is a compelling reason involving fundamental rights violations of an extraordinary nature.

To understand the context of this gag order, one must delve into the background of the Dharmasthala controversy. Dharmasthala, located in the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka, is home to the famous Sri Manjunatha Temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva. The temple is not just a religious site but also a major cultural and charitable institution managed by the Heggade family, who have been its hereditary administrators for generations. The current head, Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade, is a respected philanthropist known for his contributions to education, healthcare, and rural development through the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara (SDM) institutions.

The dispute that led to the media gag order stems from allegations of mismanagement and internal family conflicts within the Heggade lineage. Reports suggest that certain family members have raised concerns over the administration of temple funds, property dealings, and succession issues. These allegations surfaced in the public domain through various media outlets, leading to widespread speculation and sensational reporting. In response, the temple authorities approached the local court in Belthangady, seeking an injunction to prevent what they described as "defamatory and harmful" coverage that could tarnish the institution's reputation and incite unrest among devotees.

The lower court, in its order, imposed a blanket gag on media reportage concerning the specifics of the dispute, including any references to internal family matters or financial irregularities. This move was justified on the grounds of preserving the sanctity of the religious site and preventing potential law and order issues, given Dharmasthala's status as a major pilgrimage center attracting millions of visitors annually. Critics, however, argue that such orders undermine transparency and accountability, especially in institutions that handle significant public donations and charitable activities.

The petitioners before the Supreme Court included representatives from prominent media houses and freelance journalists who have been covering Karnataka's socio-religious landscape. In their arguments, they highlighted how the gag order has effectively silenced investigative journalism on matters of public interest. "Dharmasthala is not just a temple; it's a public trust with enormous resources. The public has a right to know about its governance," one of the petitioners was quoted as saying outside the court. They drew parallels to landmark cases like the Sahara vs. SEBI judgment, where the Supreme Court had cautioned against overbroad media restrictions, and the more recent Bloomberg case involving restrictions on financial reporting.

Legal experts have mixed reactions to the Supreme Court's refusal. Some view it as a prudent step to avoid overburdening the apex court with matters that can be resolved at lower levels. "The high court is fully equipped to handle this. Jumping straight to the SC could lead to judicial chaos," said senior advocate Rajeev Sharma, a constitutional law specialist based in Bengaluru. Others, however, express concern that this could embolden lower courts to issue similar gag orders more frequently, chilling free speech. "In an era of digital media, where information spreads rapidly, such orders need careful scrutiny to balance rights," noted media law expert Dr. Anjali Rao.

This case also brings to light broader issues in India's media landscape, particularly in relation to religious institutions. Dharmasthala is emblematic of many such sites across the country, like Tirupati or Sabarimala, where administrative disputes often intersect with faith and tradition. The temple's management has long been praised for its innovative dispute resolution mechanism, known as the "Dharmasthala model," where the Heggade acts as a mediator in local conflicts, blending spirituality with justice. However, the current controversy has cast a shadow over this image, with allegations ranging from nepotism to financial opacity.

Supporters of the temple administration argue that media sensationalism has exaggerated minor issues, potentially harming the faith of devotees. "Dharmasthala is a beacon of harmony. Unchecked reporting could disrupt this," said a spokesperson for the SDM Trust. On the other hand, civil society groups advocate for greater accountability, pointing out that religious trusts in India manage billions in assets and should be subject to the same scrutiny as other public entities.

The Supreme Court's decision not to entertain the plea does not close the door entirely. The bench left room for the petitioners to approach it again if the high court fails to provide adequate relief. Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court is scheduled to hear the matter in the coming weeks, where arguments on the merits of the gag order will be presented. This hearing could set important precedents for how media restrictions are applied in cases involving religious sensitivities.

In the larger picture, this episode reflects the evolving dynamics between the judiciary, media, and religious institutions in India. As the country grapples with balancing secular governance with cultural reverence, cases like Dharmasthala test the limits of constitutional freedoms. Journalists and media watchdogs are closely monitoring the developments, hopeful that the high court will strike a fair balance.

The refusal by the Supreme Court also comes amid a spate of similar challenges across India. For instance, in recent months, courts in various states have issued gag orders in high-profile cases involving politicians, celebrities, and corporate entities, raising alarms about a potential trend towards censorship. Advocacy groups like the Editors Guild of India have called for guidelines to prevent misuse of such orders, emphasizing that any restriction on media must be proportionate and justified under the reasonable restrictions clause of Article 19(2).

For now, the media gag remains in place, leaving many questions unanswered about the internal workings of one of Karnataka's most venerated institutions. As the legal battle shifts to the high court, stakeholders from all sides await a resolution that could influence not just Dharmasthala but the broader framework of media freedom in religious contexts.

This development is particularly poignant in Bengaluru, the hub of Karnataka's media industry, where journalists have been vocal about the chilling effect of such orders. Local press clubs have organized discussions on the topic, underscoring the need for judicial sensitivity to press rights. As the story unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the delicate interplay between faith, law, and information in a diverse democracy like India.

Read the Full The Hans India Article at:
[ https://www.thehansindia.com/news/cities/bengaluru/dharmasthala-sc-refuses-to-entertain-plea-challenging-media-gag-order-990494 ]