<p>Bengaluru: A City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has passed an ex-parte ad-interim mandatory injunction against 332 defendants, including individuals, media houses, YouTubers and social media handles, to delete 8,800 URLs/links to the stories about to the crime registered in Dharmasthala police station alleging mass burials. 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai passed this order in the suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D, secretary of the institutions run by Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala.</p><p>“This is an exceptional case wherein there are warranting circumstances to pass an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to delete and de-index all the defamatory contents as specified in the schedule to the plaint and IA No 2 to prevent further damages,” the court said. The schedule in the suit has given the URLs to various stories of media organisations, posts on social media such as X, instagram and digital news platform contents.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials case: No officer has asked to leave the SIT, says Home Minister Parameshwara.<p>The court order said, “..the defendants are directed by way of ad-interim mandatory injunction to delete/de-index all the defamatory contents and information against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala either in the digital media or print media of any kind until further orders.” The next hearing is scheduled for August 5.</p><p>The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against defendants from sharing false information during the suit's pendency. Additionally, they sought two ad-interim mandatory injunctions; retraining from publishing defamatory contents against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and for removal of specified defamatory content from digital platforms.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials: Karnataka sets up SIT to probe allegations.<p>The Court said that it is conscious of the fact that it shall strike a balance between the right to speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution and also the rights of the persons who allege defamation. “But, as per the case of the plaintiff, this is an exceptional case wherein some Media and Individuals started making false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff and his family members and also against Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple along with various Institutions run by it without any basis,” the court said.</p><p>The suit stated that the FIR (39/2025) merely stated that the informant has buried various dead bodies within the limits of Dharmasthala. While there is no allegation against the plaintiff, his family members or any of the institutions run by the temple administration in the FIR, there are defamatory and false allegations without any basis. The advocate for the plaintiff also cited the Supreme Court judgements in the Hammad Ahmed v/s Abdul Majeed and others case and also Dorab Cawasji Warden v/s Coomi Sorab Warden and others. It was argued that the Apex Court has held that an ad interim mandatory injunction can be granted if the court is satisfied that withholding it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: A City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has passed an ex-parte ad-interim mandatory injunction against 332 defendants, including individuals, media houses, YouTubers and social media handles, to delete 8,800 URLs/links to the stories about to the crime registered in Dharmasthala police station alleging mass burials. 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai passed this order in the suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D, secretary of the institutions run by Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala.</p><p>“This is an exceptional case wherein there are warranting circumstances to pass an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to delete and de-index all the defamatory contents as specified in the schedule to the plaint and IA No 2 to prevent further damages,” the court said. The schedule in the suit has given the URLs to various stories of media organisations, posts on social media such as X, instagram and digital news platform contents.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials case: No officer has asked to leave the SIT, says Home Minister Parameshwara.<p>The court order said, “..the defendants are directed by way of ad-interim mandatory injunction to delete/de-index all the defamatory contents and information against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and Sri Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala either in the digital media or print media of any kind until further orders.” The next hearing is scheduled for August 5.</p><p>The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against defendants from sharing false information during the suit's pendency. Additionally, they sought two ad-interim mandatory injunctions; retraining from publishing defamatory contents against the plaintiff, his family members, institutions run by the family of the plaintiff and for removal of specified defamatory content from digital platforms.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials: Karnataka sets up SIT to probe allegations.<p>The Court said that it is conscious of the fact that it shall strike a balance between the right to speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution and also the rights of the persons who allege defamation. “But, as per the case of the plaintiff, this is an exceptional case wherein some Media and Individuals started making false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff and his family members and also against Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple along with various Institutions run by it without any basis,” the court said.</p><p>The suit stated that the FIR (39/2025) merely stated that the informant has buried various dead bodies within the limits of Dharmasthala. While there is no allegation against the plaintiff, his family members or any of the institutions run by the temple administration in the FIR, there are defamatory and false allegations without any basis. The advocate for the plaintiff also cited the Supreme Court judgements in the Hammad Ahmed v/s Abdul Majeed and others case and also Dorab Cawasji Warden v/s Coomi Sorab Warden and others. It was argued that the Apex Court has held that an ad interim mandatory injunction can be granted if the court is satisfied that withholding it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice.</p>