Basavaraj Bommai seeks court injunction against media after advocate claims he has private video of ex-Karnataka CM

In one of the suits, Bommai has named Jagadeesh and 52 media platforms. In the second suit, he has named Jagadeesh, X Corp, Facebook, and Instagram. Bommai is represented by former Karnataka advocate general Prabhuling Navadgi.

The Assembly constituency of Shiggaon in Haveri district which was earlier represented by Bommai is due for a bypoll soon on account of Bommai, who won the seat in 2023, being elected to the Lok Sabha in May this year. Bommai has rejected speculation that his son could be fielded as the BJP candidate for the Shiggaon bypoll.

Bommai is among the dozens of elected representatives from Karnataka who have sought ex parte gag orders on the media against reporting on controversies related to them. Over the last few years, local courts in Bengaluru have issued ex parte gag orders against the media in several cases brought by bureaucrats, police officers, politicians, lawyers, and businessmen embroiled in controversies.

In most of the cases, the ex parte temporary injunctions against the publication and broadcast of material have been issued by the civil courts by citing a November 26, 1986 order of the Karnataka High Court.

In the 1986 case, the Karnataka High Court, while approving a temporary injunction granted by a court to a police officer, B N Garudachar, over the reporting of allegations made against him by a legislator A K Subbaiah, ruled that freedom of speech entails a corresponding duty.

According to the judgment, the right to freedom of speech and expression is controlled by a corresponding duty not to infringe on the rights of others. “It is no doubt true that one has got a right to expose corrupt practices found in society. But there are methods and ways by which one can expose them. But if in the guise of exposing corrupt practices, a person makes statements which are per se defamatory, he cannot be excused on the ground that he might take up the plea of justification or truth later on,” the 1986 high court order states.

In many of the instances where the gag orders on the media have been obtained by public personalities, the higher courts have ruled that the gag order only bars false information from being propagated and that reporting based on facts is not barred.