A Bengaluru civil court has restrained 42 defendants, among them Freedom TV Kannada, a YouTube channel called Karnataka Honey Trap, Kannada and English news outlets, and the companies behind WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook, from carrying two videos that link former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to an alleged honey trap. The court passed the ex parte order on October 13, 2026.
An order of this kind restricts what these organisations may publish before they get a chance to present their case. The Supreme Court of India held in March 2024, in Bloomberg v. Zee, that a trial court granting such an order against the media must explain how the three-part test for an injunction is met, rather than record it “as a mantra”. While the Bengaluru order records a prima facie case and harm that money cannot repair, the words “balance of convenience” do not appear in the court-published copy MediaNama has read.
What exactly is restrained
XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge B. Pushpanjali passed the order in O.S. No. 7655/2026, a defamation suit in which Siddaramaiah also seeks damages, according to LiveLaw. The defendants are restrained “from telecasting, retelecasting, broadcasting, publishing, republishing, uploading, transmitting, circulating, sharing, hosting or otherwise disseminating, in any manner or through any medium whatsoever” the two videos, dated September 27 and October 2, 2026, “together with the captions accompanying the same, or any part, clip, extract, screenshot, transcript, edited version, reproduction or substantially identical version thereof”.
The order also directs “defendants No. 28 to 32, insofar as applicable to their respective platforms and services, to forthwith disable access to and/or block the impugned videos”. The order does not name them; Bar and Bench reports that WhatsApp, YouTube LLC, Google India, Yahoo India, and Facebook India are among the defendants. The restraint runs “till next date”.
What the court was told, and what it found
The court has not yet examined whether the allegations are true. It has recorded Siddaramaiah’s case that the first video shows a woman who “is prompted through a series of questions to make grave allegations relating to an alleged incident in or around the year 2011”, and that “no contemporaneous complaint or independently verifiable material supporting the accusation is displayed in the publication”.
The second video, an hour-long Freedom TV Kannada programme titled “LIVE: Biggest CD Blast in Karnataka Politics?“, had “approximately 3.24 lakh views” by October 4, according to the plaint.
“The right to privacy is an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,” the order says. It adds that, since “the plaintiff has specifically disputed about the authenticity, credibility, intention and the propriety of circulation without verification”, circulating the videos “will definitely cause immense damages to the dignity, status, position and reputation of the plaintiff”, which “cannot be compensated in terms of money”.
What the order leaves open
The suit’s final prayer asks the court to also restrain “reports which reproduce, repeat or disseminate the allegations contained in or emanating from the said impugned material”. Tuesday’s order stops at the videos and anything that reproduces them. Whether a news report describing the allegations constitutes a “substantially identical version” is a question for the defendants to argue when they appear.
The order is also conditional. Siddaramaiah must deliver the application, plaint, and documents to each defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Failing this, “the above said exparte order stands automatically cancelled”. Notice has been issued on both applications, along with the suit summons. The returnable date is not filled in on the copy MediaNama has seen. Siddaramaiah has publicly said that he regrets seeking the order, South First reported.
MediaNama has written to Siddaramaiah’s counsel, Freedom TV Kannada, Google, Meta and a media-law practitioner, asking:
- Whether the order is intended to cover news reports that describe the allegations without reproducing the videos.
- Whether any defendant has been served under Order XXXIX Rule 3(a), and when the matter is next listed.
- How YouTube, WhatsApp and Facebook will identify “substantially identical” clips beyond the two listed URLs.
- Whether the order meets the standard set in Bloomberg v. Zee.
This story will be updated with responses as they come in.
Also read:
- Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Directing Bloomberg to Take Down Article on Zee, Highlights Impact on Freedom of Speech
- Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Defamatory YouTube Videos Against BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia
- Supreme Court orders unhindered internet access in Delhi, but leaves legality of shutdowns unexamined
The post Bengaluru court restrains 42 defendants over Siddaramaiah ‘honey trap’ videos, but does its order meet SC test? appeared first on MEDIANAMA.