W., SRIYUTHS SUSHANTH v. A., DHEERAJ S. J., VISHWAS N. B., AND DIVIN GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7953 OF 2025 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 7957 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W IN WP No. 7953/2025 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI PRADEEP NAIK SON OF THIMMANAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.7, MODI HOSPITAL COMPLEX MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 086. (BY SRI A.VELAN, A/W., SRIYUTHS SUSHANTH V. A., DHEERAJ S. J., VISHWAS N. B., AND DIVIN GOWDA, ADVOCATES) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WEST DIVISION BENGALURU CITY.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH, AGA) …RESPONDENTS INDIA PRAYING THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND TO DIRECTION CONSTITUTION OF RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM PREVENTING OR PROHIBITING THE PETITIONER AND MEMBERS OF KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE (R) FROM CONDUCTING PEACEFUL JUSTICE FOR SOWJANYA PROTESTS REGARDING THE MOVEMENT AT FREEDOM PARK, BENGALURU, ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. NO. 19382 OF 2023. IN WP NO. 7957/2025 BETWEEN: NATIVE EMPOWERING AND EQUIPPING - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 TEAM FOR HOPE AND INTERACTION (R) (NEETHI TRUST) REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT SRI JAYANTH T. K., SON OF THANGAPPAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1/123 KALAMETHADKA MANE ICCHILAMPAADI GRAMA AND ANCHE KADABA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 221. (BY SRI A.VELAN, A/W., SRIYUTHS SUSHANTH V. A., DHEERAJ S. J., VISHWAS N. B., AND DIVIN GOWDA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 574 214. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 266 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 BEARING NO. TOKDB- MAG0MAG/35/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Both these petitions are preferred by different petitioners for the same cause of action, for holding a peaceful protest. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri A Velan along with Sriyuths Sushanth V A, Dheeraj S J., Vishwas N.B. and Divin Gowda, learned counsels appearing for petitioners in both these cases and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of obtaining in Writ Petition No.7957 of 2025 are noticed. 4. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass at this juncture. The petitioner-Trust registered in the year 2015 is said to now taken up the cause of justice for one Soujanya. In furtherance thereof, for conduct of a peaceful protest on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 11-03-2025 to demand for an Acquittal Review Committee and to take action against the police officers involved in the investigation, sought permission from the hands of the jurisdictional police to hold such protest. The representation to the Tahsildar, Kadaba Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, reads as follows: “Ref No.: 26/DH-2025 Date: 11.03.2025 jUÉ, vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï PÀqÀ§ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ದ(cid:2)ಣ ಕನ(cid:6)ಡ (cid:8)(cid:9)ೆ(cid:11) ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃÉ, (cid:13)ಷಯ: ದ(cid:2)ಣ ಕನ(cid:6)ಡ (cid:8)(cid:9)ೆ(cid:11) (cid:16)ೆಳ(cid:18)ಂಗ(cid:21) (cid:22)(cid:23)ೕ(cid:25) (cid:26)ಾ(cid:28)ೆ (cid:29).ಸಂ(cid:31)ೆ 250/2012 ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಕು%ತು ’ೋ)* +,ೇ*ಶನದಂ.ೆ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ 3ೌಜನ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ ’ೊ(cid:9)ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಆ:;<ೆ= %ವ? PÀ@A Ü ಅE’ಾ%ಗಳ (cid:13)ರುದF ಸೂಕ(cid:18) ಕ"ಮ’ೆG Hಾಗೂ ಈ ರಚCೆ Dಾ(cid:21) vÀ¦àvÀ¸À ಪ"ಕರಣವನು(cid:6) SIT ತ+(cid:31)ೆ2ೆ ಆಗ"JK ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCಾ RರವS2ೆ2ೆ ಅನುಮO ’ೋ%. RೕಲGಂಡ (cid:13)ಷಯ’ೆG ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ (cid:16)ೆಳ(cid:18)ಂಗ(cid:21) .ಾಲೂಕು ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ Uಾಂಗಳ +VಾK W। ಚಂದಪX 2ೌಡ Hಾಗೂ ಕುಸುDಾವO ಅವರ ಎರಡCೇ ಪZO" ಕುDಾ% 3ೌಜನ ಳ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ ’ೊ(cid:9)ೆ2ೆ ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ WCಾಂಕ 10.10.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼À ÛAUÀr À ¸ÀASÉå 250/2012 UÉ ಸಂಬಂEKದಂ.ೆ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzs ಮHೇ[ \ೆA] Oಮ^ೋ(cid:21) ಮತು(cid:18) ತಂಡದವ^ಾದ CಾವZ ಈ2ಾಗ(cid:9)ೇ ಹಲವZ ಕ_ೆ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ 3ೌಜನ ಳ Cಾ ಯ’ಾG‘ Hೋ^ಾಟ DಾಡುO(cid:18),ೆaೕVೆ. 3ೌಜನ ಅ.ಾ 7ಾರ ’ೊ(cid:9)ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಬ2ೆb Cಾ ಯ’ಾG‘ ಆಗ"Jಸಲು ಮತು(cid:18) ಆ^ೋc ಪ.ೆ(cid:18)dಾಗ,ೇ ಇರುವZದರ (cid:13)ರುದF ಧf+ ಎತ(cid:18)ಲು ಮತು(cid:18) ಈ ಪ"ಕರಣದ(cid:23)(cid:11) ವ ವK1ತ ಸಂಚು ರೂcK ಆ^ೋcಗಳ ಪರVಾ‘ +ಂತ ಅE’ಾ%ಗಳ (cid:13)ರುದF ತ+(cid:31)ೆ2ಾ‘ ’ೋ)* +,ೇ*ಶನದಂ.ೆ ಅ:]ಟ= %ವ? ಕ@A ರಚCೆ Dಾಡಲು ಅಂ.ೆgೕ ಧಮ*ಸ1ಳ 2ಾ"ಮದ(cid:23)(cid:11) ಆ‘ರುವಂತ ಅಸಹಜ 3ಾವZಗಳ ತ+(cid:31)ೆ2ೆ ಕಡಬ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 .ಾಲೂಕು ಕ7ೇ% ಮುಂhಾಗದ(cid:23)(cid:11) ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCೆ ನ_ೆಸಲು ಉ,ೆaೕjK,ೆaೕVೆ. ಈ JCೆ(cid:6)(cid:9)ೆಯ(cid:23)(cid:11), Cಾ ಯ’ಾG‘ 3ಾವ*ಜ+ಕರ ಮನ(cid:13)ಯನು(cid:6) ಸ’ಾ*ರ’ೆG ಮತು(cid:18) ಅE’ಾ%ಗk2ೆ ಒ.ಾ(cid:18)mಸುವ ಸಲುVಾ‘ WCಾಂಕ: 15.03.2025 ರಂದು (cid:16)ೆk2ೆb 10.00 %ಂದ ಮnಾ ಹ(cid:6) 12 ಗಂ<ೆಯವ^ೆ2ೆ ಸುಬ"ಹoಣ - ಕಡಬ ರ3ೆ(cid:18)ಯ ಮ,ಾ*ಳWಂದ ಕಡಬ .ಾಲೂಕು ಕ7ೇ% ಮುಂhಾಗದವ^ೆ2ೆ \ಾಂOಯುತ ಪ"OಭಟCಾ RರವS2ೆ Hಾಗೂ ಕಡಬ .ಾಲೂಕ ಕ7ೇ% ಮುಂhಾಗದ(cid:23)(cid:11) ಬೃಹN ಪ"OಭಟCೆ ನ_ೆಸಲು ಅನುಮO ಮತು(cid:18) Hೋ^ಾಟ2ಾರ%2ೆ ಸೂಕ(cid:18) ರp(cid:28)ೆ ಒದ‘K’ೊಳq(cid:16)ೇ’ಾ‘ ’ೋರು.ೆ(cid:18)ೕVೆ. ವಂದCೆಗrೆsಂW2ೆ, Ewà vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ dAiÀÄAvï n,PÉ ^ಾtಾ ಧ pರು ¤Ãw vÀAqÀ.” The representation is clear that it is a protest seeking Acquittal Review Committee for the death of one Soujanya in the year 2012. The Tahsildar of Kadaba Taluk grants permission to hold the protest in terms of his order dated 14-3-2025. After the grant of permission, it transpires that objection is filed by an Advocate and on the said objection, the permission so granted is withdrawn on the next day, by issuance of an endorsement on 15-03-25. It is this action of withdrawal of the endorsement that has driven the petitioner to this Court. 5. The learned counsel Sri A Velan, submits that the right to protest cannot be stalled by the State by issuing gag orders. The gag order, in the case at hand, is that the State issues an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 order that nobody should protest on the issue. Therefore, the learned counsel submits such orders are contrary to law. He would further contend that permission is withdrawn on twin score, one, objections by the Advocate and the other, the order passed by the coordinate bench in W.P.No.19382 of 2023. The learned counsel would seek to distinguish the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench, contending that it would not become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. He would further contend the protest would be peaceful and if there is any violation of law, the police are at liberty, to take action, in accordance with law. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah would also submit that if the protestors would violate the directions issued by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.19382 of 2023, they should be reserved liberty to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, the issue is permitting the petitioners to protest on an issue that they are wanting to project in terms of the representation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 7. The representation is quoted hereinabove. Permission was granted, it is withdrawn, owing to the twin fact as observed hereinabove. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in W.P. 19382 of 2023. The coordinate bench has held as follows: “The 1st petitioner claiming to be an employee of Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project (for short ‘SKDRDP’) and the 2nd petitioner, a family member of Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade are before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents police to consider their representations dated 05.08.2023 and take suitable action in terms of the prayer made therein. The petitioners are also seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents police and the State to take action in accordance with law to conduct investigation in connection with Special C.C.No.203/2016 on the file of the Special Court, City Civil Judge at Bengaluru; to direct the respondents police to take suitable action against respondent No.9 for violating the orders passed by the Courts of law and for having made reckless, baseless and scandalous allegations against the judiciary and judges. 2. At the threshold, learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioners submitted that prayer (b) has become infructuous in view of the action taken by the respondents police. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that certain directions were issued by the learned City Civil Judge in O.S.No.4527/2023, directing respondent No.9 herein and the defendants therein inter alia not to further transmit the videos specified in the schedule against the institution, head of the institution and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.1/2023 till the next date of hearing; temporarily from making/telecasting/publishing/circulating/forwarding/uplo defendants injuncting the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 ading/ transmitting/ sharing any false, baseless, reckless allegations against the institution, head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade, and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by defendants, as claimed by the petitioners in I.A.No.2/2023, injuncting the defendants therein by an order of temporary injunction from approaching any media platforms/publishing houses by making false, baseless, reckless allegations against the head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or his institutions or Temple, organizations Dharmasthala by making frivolous, reckless allegations in the pretext of discussing the case relating to Spl.CC No.203/2016 on the file of the CBI in Court, Bangalore as claimed by I.A.No.3/2023, till the next date of hearing and further having regard to the violation of such interim orders passed by the learned City Civil Judge, contempt proceedings were initiated before the Hon’ble Division Bench by some other persons. Sri Manjunathaswamy false, baseless, the plaintiffs or 4. seeking appropriate directions Learned Senior Counsel would submit that despite all these directions and despite the matter being considered at the hands of the Hon’ble Divison Bench in the contempt petition, the reckless conduct of the 9th respondent continues unabated. In that regard, it is submitted that I.A.No.4/2024 has been filed by the petitioners the respondents/police not to grant any permission/licence so as to enable the respondent No.9 to conduct any public events/function in the name and style of “Justice for Sowjanya” or by any other name and grant such other further reliefs as this court may deem fit. Learned Senior Counsel submits that along with the application a Pen- drive has been submitted before this Court containing the reckless speech and statements made by the 9th respondent against the judiciary in general and the judges in particular. to 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, appearing for the 9th respondent submits that during the pendency of the contempt petition, this issue was raised by the petitioners and the same was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CCC No.304/2020. tendered an The 9th respondent - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 unconditional apology on 11.01.2024 and the Hon’ble Division Bench accepted the apology and closed the allegations of contempt of court on that score in terms of the order dated 05.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel in would therefore submit that the prayer made I.A.No.4/2024 need not be considered, having regard to the fact that the Hon’ble Division Bench has already accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the 9th respondent herein. 6. During the course of these proceedings, this Court had indicated to the 9th respondent that merely by contending that his right of speech should not be violated or curtailed, 9th respondent cannot seek to go on making statement in the public and in the streets, undermining the dignity of any individual. This Court had indicated to the 9th respondent that it is open for him to get redressal in a manner known to law, even if any action on the part of an individual had in any manner affected the rights of the 9th respondent or if he seeks to espouse a public cause, he could take action only in a manner known to law and he cannot go to the streets and go on making reckless statement even against private individuals. And in that regard this Court gave an opportunity to the 9th respondent to file a statement before this Court saying that he will not indulge in such activities in future. However, today learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent has filed an affidavit of the 9th respondent pointing out to the issue regarding the statement made by the 9th respondent against the judiciary and the judges and that the Hon’ble Division Bench accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the 9th respondent, in its order dated 05.06.2024. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that 9th respondent has clearly stated in the affidavit that he will not in future make any such derogatory statement in respect of the judiciary or the Hon’ble Judges. However, insofar as the indication given by this Court on the previous date of hearing, the 9th respondent is not ready to make any statement regarding his right to go into the public and make any statement or derogatory remarks against a private individual. 7. In this background, this Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 the learned Additional Advocate General and this Court proceeds to consider the case for final disposal. 8. Having regard to the admitted fact that the agitation in the beginning had commenced on account of the murder of one Soujanya and a forum known as “Justice for Soujanaya” was formed and in that regard certain statements were made in public by many persons including the 9th respondent. The 1st petitioner being an employee of SKDRDP and the 2nd petitioner being a member of the family of Sri Veerendra Heggade, Dharmadhikari of Shri Dharmasthala Temple are before this Court seeking certain directions to the respondents police to take note of the conduct of the 9th respondent and all such persons, who are said to have organized public agitations, created platforms and have made public speeches and statement which has cast a great deal of anxiety and anguish to the followers of the Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatha temple and workers of many of the projects taken up by Sri Veerendra Heggade. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court that the 9th respondent should be stopped from making such derogatory statements against an individual who has certain respect in the society. It is submitted that the 9th respondent cannot claim to have an absolute right to speech and therefore go before the public and go on making such derogatory remarks against a private individuals. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there cannot be any absolute right that the 9th respondent can claim to enable him to go on making such derogatory statements in the open public, even if he is aggrieved of any action on the part of Dr.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or of the institution or the projects taken up by the said individual and his family members. If at all, the 9th respondent is aggrieved of any such action, it will be open for him to take action in accordance with law and by merely stating that he has a right to speech, he should not be permitted to make derogatory remarks in open public platforms or to publish any such derogatory remarks. In that regard, it is submitted that petitioners are before this Court seeking suitable directions to the respondent police. 9. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 4 SCC (1) has held that dignity is the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 quintessential quality of personality and a basic constituent of the rights guaranteed and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Dignity is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society. That while the right to speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct, dignity as a part of Article 21 has its own significance. That dignity of an individual cannot be overridden and blotched by malice and vile and venal attacks to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another by stating that the same curbs and puts unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. It was therefore held that having regard to the unequivocal declaration of the Apex Court, to the fact that Article 21 could not be sacrificed at the altar of securing the widest amplitude of free speech rights, this premise can serve as a theoretical justification for prescribing restraints on derogatory and disparaging speech. Human dignity, being a primary element under the protective umbrella of Article 21, cannot be negatively altered on account of derogatory speech, which marks out persons as unequal and vilifies them leading to indignity. The right to protect the dignity of an individual is therefore placed on a higher pedestal than the right to speech. 10. Reference is also made to Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code (the corresponding provision can be found at Section 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the Hon’ble Apex Court has singled out this provision, as a provision protecting the interest of an individual. The provision prescribes punishment for any person who abets the commission of an offence sought to be perpetrated against any individual in the Society. 11. Having regard to the facts and statements narrated herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein have a right to seek such directions to the respondent police. The respondent police are required to take action in accordance with law if they find that the 9th respondent or his followers or any person makes any statement in the open public or publishes any such derogatory statement, which is an offence in accordance with law and in that regard, if any material is placed by the petitioners or any person aggrieved of any such action on the part of the 9th respondent or his followers, and if such information is - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 placed before the police, it is the bounden duty of the respondents police to take action in accordance with law. immediately, 12. With these observations, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of.” Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would seek to distinguish the said judgment to contend that it is inapplicable to the facts of the case it is not, since both these issues relate to one solitary claim for justice for Soujanya, I deem it appropriate to paraphrase the findings therein to the subject order. The Division Bench in W.P.No.15399 of 2019, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 5. Petitioner has assailed the interim order passed by the learned City Civil Judge mainly on the following grounds: • • that the voters/citizen form the most vital part of Democracy. Democracy expects openness which is a hallmark of a free Society. The right to get information is a natural right flowing from Democracy. In the absence of relevant information, voters will be casting votes based on one sided information; the purpose of Press is to advance public interest by publishing facts and opinion without which electorate cannot make a responsible judgment. The impugned order restraining the Press and publication of news - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 is violative of ‘Freedom of Press’ enshrined in the Constitution. 6. Shri.Harish, submitted that the impugned order is in the form of a ‘gag order’ and it has ‘chilling effect’ on free flow of information. He relied upon following authorities in support of his case: Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] State Through Special Cell, New Delhi [(2003) 6 SCC 641] R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and another [(1994)6 SCC 632]14 Brij Bhushan and another Vs. State of Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 129] 7. Shri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff (second respondent) contended that: • petitioner is not a party in the suit; • no order is passed against the petitioner; • a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an order passed in a Civil suit between private parties in an inter party lis. He placed reliance on the following authorities: A.K.Subbaiah Vs. B.N.Garudachar [ILR 1987 KAR 100] Magna Publishers Co. Ltd., and others Vs. Shilpa S.Shetty [(2007)12 SCC 792] Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others [(2015)5 SCC 423] - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, the impugned order is in the form of a ‘gag order’ and obstructs disclosure of complete information about the contesting candidate which vitiates the process of free and fair election. 10. The documents annexed to the plaint, copies of which were made available by Shri. Harish for the petitioner include tweets in social media. One of the tweet is by a rival political party, which is in furtherance to a tweet made by one Dr.Som Dutta. 11. Shri.Ashok Haranahalli’s contention is that the said Dr.Som Dutta has subsequently tweeted stating that she would not allow political parties to use her tweet for their agenda. Thus he argued that the author of the tweet has no grievance. Nonetheless rival political parties are likely to take undue advantage. Therefore, plaintiff is justified filing the suit and seeking temporary injunction. in 12. The cause of action described in the plaint is the statements which the plaintiff claims to have read. A careful perusal of plaint and annexed documents shows that the tweet made by Dr.Som Dutta and responses to the said tweet in the social media has prompted the plaintiff to file the suit. It is averred in paragraph No.7 that keeping in view the ensuing election, persons inimically disposed towards plaintiff are making efforts to tarnish his image. In paragraph No.12, it is averred that if defendants start telecasting or publishing false and manipulated contents, the same would cause irreparable loss to plaintiff’s reputation. 13. It is relevant to note that calendar of events have been issued and the election process for Lok Sabha Election is in progress. Shri.Harish, learned Advocate is right in his submission that voters have a right to know all information about all contesting candidates. 14. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ to every citizen. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 15. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order has restrained the defendants from making ‘defamatory statements’ against the plaintiff. What is ‘defamatory’ can be tested and decided only if an act of is making a statement or challenged by the aggrieved person before an appropriate forum. telecasting a program 16. Therefore, in our view, the defendants are not prevented from publishing or telecasting any news item which is not defamatory in their opinion. In case plaintiff is aggrieved by any such publication or telecast of any news item, he may approach the Election Commission of India. We dispose of this writ petition with above observation. No costs.” The Division Bench was considering an identical gag order issued by the State against the protesters. The Division Bench observes that what is defamatory or what could be defamatory can be found only when the citizen is permitted to protest, as every citizen has freedom of speech and expression, as obtaining under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 8. In that light, following the orders passed by the coordinate bench, as also the Division Bench, as quoted supra, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to hold a peaceful protest, strictly in consonance with law. If there is - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11474 WP No. 7953 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7957 of 2025 any violation of the observations made in the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate bench, it shall be open to the respondent-State to take action in accordance with law, as is observed by the coordinate bench. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed . Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69 CT:SS