A Judge’s shortsightedness, a journalist’s ordeal, and the price of speaking truth

In a democratic society, the judiciary is expected to stand as the final bulwark between the citizen and the powerful. But what happens when that very institution falters—not through malice, but through a dangerous lack of disclosure, judgment, and independence? The recent controversy surrounding Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai B of the 10th Additional City and Civil Sessions Court, Bengaluru, offers a disturbing case study.

Judge Rai had, in a move now overruled by the Karnataka High Court, issued an ex parte injunction ordering the removal of 8,842 online links related to the Dharmasthala burials case. The sweeping nature of the order, passed without hearing the affected parties, already raised eyebrows. But what has now emerged is far more serious—a pattern of close ties between the judge and the petitioner, Harshendra Kumar, brother of Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade.

The judge studied law at SDM Law College, Mangaluru, run by the same Dharmasthala trust. He worked under P.P. Hegde, the lawyer who represented Veerendra Heggade in a defamation suit against journalist B.V. Seetaram in 2004. Today, the same Seetaram—of Karavali Ale—is among the voices questioning the burial scandal. To preside over a case with such direct overlaps without recusal is not a lapse—it is a betrayal of judicial integrity.

The High Court’s intervention, striking down the gag order, is welcome. But for the affected media—particularly a Mangaluru-based YouTuber who bore the brunt of the order—the damage is done. Legal costs mounted. Videos were erased. The stress of battling a powerful institution through courts was enormous. That trauma, emotional and financial, could have been avoided if Judge Rai had stepped aside in the first place.

This incident is not an isolated error—it reflects a systemic fault line. It raises urgent questions: How many judges today are too closely entangled with religious or institutional power to function independently? How often is recusal seen as weakness instead of wisdom? And how can small, independent journalists ever hope to stand up to such intertwined forces without being crushed?

The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge must now reassign the case to a bench completely removed from the influence of Dharmasthala’s social, educational, and legal networks. More importantly, the Karnataka High Court must consider whether to open a formal review into Judge Rai’s conduct. The judiciary’s moral authority depends not on power, but on its ability to be perceived as fair, even when dealing with the powerful.

Democracy survives only when journalists can speak without fear, and judges can act without favour. In this case, both principles were nearly extinguished by a single misstep—one that was not really a misstep, but a willful ignoring of long-standing links.

India cannot afford a judiciary that is blind to its own biases. Nor can it afford a media that must go to court to defend the right to ask questions.