Silencing the press: a dangerous overreach by Bengaluru civil court

 The Bengaluru Civil Court’s recent and latest order (second in the line) restraining the media from publishing any “defamatory” material against Harshendra Kumar, Veerendra Heggade, their family members, and their institutions is not just troubling—it is a direct assault on the principle of press freedom. The judiciary, which ought to be the foremost guardian of constitutional liberties, risks here becoming an instrument of censorship.

This is not a grey area in law. The Supreme Court settled the matter thirty years ago in the celebrated R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu—the Auto Shankar case. In that judgment, Justices B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.C. Sen unambiguously ruled that there can be no prior restraint on the press. The government, its officials, and by extension any powerful institution cannot gag the media in anticipation of defamation. The remedy lies only after publication, through defamation proceedings, damages, or criminal prosecution. Anything else is unconstitutional.

Yet the Bengaluru order disregards this precedent. By prohibiting undefined “defamatory content,” the civil court has issued a blanket gag order. It does not identify which statements are false, nor does it test the veracity of claims. The order is vague, sweeping, and chilling. It places the press in a straitjacket where the fear of contempt or violation forces silence, even where the truth may be at stake. In effect, it creates a climate where those with resources can shield themselves from scrutiny by wielding judicial injunctions as weapons.

Let us be clear: the right to reputation is real. It flows from Article 21, and no citizen—whether humble or powerful—should be defamed with impunity. But reputation cannot be protected by muzzling the press before a word is printed. The very essence of a free society is that speech may flow, and accountability may follow after. If individuals feel wronged, the law provides remedies. What the law does not permit is to put a lock on the mouths of journalists in advance.

The larger danger is precedent. If this order stands unchallenged, it will embolden other public figures and institutions to rush to civil courts for blanket injunctions. The press will live under a constant shadow of pre-emptive censorship, and citizens will be deprived of information and debate. A democracy where truth can only be spoken with prior judicial approval is a democracy in decay.

The higher judiciary must intervene. The Karnataka High Court, and if necessary, the Supreme Court, must remind lower courts of the Auto Shankar principle. Courts cannot play censor boards. They must enforce accountability without extinguishing liberty. To protect reputation by gagging the press is to protect it by sacrificing the Constitution itself.

The Bengaluru order is a dangerous overreach. It must not survive judicial scrutiny.