Siddaramaiah Defamation Suit: Bengaluru Court Restrains Publication Of Alleged MMS Videos, Orders Links Blocked [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has granted an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in a defamation suit filed by Siddaramaiah, twice Chief Minister of Karnataka, restraining the defendants from telecasting, publishing or otherwise disseminating a video dated 27.09.2026 and a live broadcast dated 02.10.2026, along with their captions and any clips, extracts, screenshots, transcripts or edited versions, and directing the platform defendants to disable access to the two links.

Smt. B. Pushpanjali, presiding over O.S. No. 7655 of 2026, passed the order on two applications, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after hearing Senior Advocate Vikram Huligal for the plaintiff and perusing the record. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, who include print, television, digital and platform entities (Defendants No. 3 to 42), and a mandatory injunction directing Defendants No. 1 and 2 to take down the impugned material from channels or accounts controlled by them and the platform defendants, particularly Defendants No. 28 to 32, to disable access to the specific URLs. I.A. No. 1 sought a restraint on dissemination of the material, and I.A. No. 2 sought a direction to Defendants No. 28 to 32 to block it on their platforms.

According to the plaintiff, he has served twice as Chief Minister, held the Finance portfolio, has been repeatedly elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and is the sitting Member from Varuna, and the allegations in the impugned material strike at his dignity, reputation and standing built over decades of public life. He contended that the first video purports to show two men and a woman in a conversation presented as a secret or hidden-camera interaction, in which the woman is prompted through a series of questions to make grave allegations about an incident said to have occurred in or around 2011, about fifteen years before publication, with no contemporaneous complaint or independently verifiable material displayed.

The plaintiff further contended that the delay, the manner of questioning, the hidden-camera presentation and a politically loaded caption, followed by sudden digital publication, disclose a calculated and malicious design to injure his reputation and political standing. He stated that on 02.10.2026 Defendant No.1 streamed a program of about one hour titled "LIVE: Biggest CD Blast in Karnataka Politics?", which had garnered about 3.24 lakh views as on 04.10.2026, that the broadcast itself acknowledged that the incident was about fifteen years old and that questions of credibility, authenticity and intention arose, yet sensationalised the matter without displaying any authentic recording of him or independently verified material. He submitted that every additional publication causes fresh and continuing injury, that the material can be copied, clipped and multiplied across media within minutes, and that reputation built over decades cannot be restored by damages once the material has spread.

In support, the plaintiff produced screenshots and printouts relating to Defendant No.1, a pen drive containing both videos, typed transcripts of both, and a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in respect of the electronic record, along with an affidavit.

The Court recorded as undisputed that the plaintiff had twice served as Chief Minister and held several constitutional, legislative and ministerial responsibilities, and observed that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It noted that the plaintiff had specifically disputed the authenticity, credibility, intention and propriety of circulation of the material without verification. In those circumstances, it held that if the material is shared, circulated or published on social media, print, digital platforms or television, it would cause immense damage to the plaintiff's dignity, status, position, reputation and privacy that cannot be compensated in money, and that the very purpose of the suit would become infructuous. It concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex-parte injunction on both applications. The order does not record any finding on the truth of the allegations in the impugned material.

The Court restrained the defendants, their proprietors, editors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and assigns, and all persons claiming through or under them, from telecasting, retelecasting, broadcasting, publishing, republishing, uploading, transmitting, circulating, sharing, hosting or otherwise disseminating, through any medium, the video dated 27.09.2026 and the video or broadcast dated 02.10.2026 at the specified YouTube links, with their captions, or any part, clip, extract, screenshot, transcript, edited version, reproduction or substantially identical version. It also restrained them from causing the material to be disseminated through any other account, channel, website, social media platform or medium, and directed Defendants No. 28 to 32, insofar as applicable to their respective platforms and services, to forthwith disable access to and block the two links and to refrain from hosting, displaying, transmitting or facilitating dissemination of the material, till the next date.

The Court directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) CPC, pay the requisite process fee and furnish sufficient copies within the stipulated period, failing which the ex-parte order will stand automatically cancelled. The office was directed to issue a certified copy of the order only after such compliance, and notice of I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 was ordered to the defendants along with the suit summons.

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Vikram Huligal, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Shathabish Shivanna, Advocate.

Case Title: Siddaramaiah vs. Freedom TV & Others, O.S. No. 7655 of 2026

[Read Order]