Back
Bengaluru Court Restrains Media from Publishing Unfounded Reports on KPSC Accused Basavaraj Kannale
In a significant , the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru on , restrained 25 media defendants from telecasting, publishing, or uploading any “unfounded” news, articles, or videos concerning Basavaraj Kannale and his family in connection with the ongoing KPSC veterinary officers recruitment scam investigation. The court also directed the immediate removal of all such content already in the public domain.
The , granted under , will remain in force until the next hearing on .
The Case Background
Kannale, a member of the Syndicate of , is the sixth accused in Crime No. 89/2026 registered at . He is also under investigation by the , the , and the for alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 400 veterinary officers by the . Currently in judicial custody, Kannale approached the civil court seeking a against editors, publishers, and social media operators, alleging that they were conducting a “” by broadcasting and publishing unverified, sensationalised material that was damaging his reputation.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate Arun Sham , appearing for Kannale, submitted that following his arrest in the high-profile scam, the defendants had published headlines such as “How can somebody become a millionaire from zero in five years?” and suggested that he purchased land using proceeds of crime. These reports, he argued, portrayed him as the “kingpin” without verification, amounting to and the investigation. The plaintiff contended that such coverage caused irreparable harm to his family’s reputation and interfered with his right to a .
The court did not hear the defendants before passing the order, as it was an ex-parte application. The judge noted that “the purpose of grant of will be defeated by delay if notices are ordered to defendants.”
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
The judge carefully perused the plaint and documents, observing that the defendants had published and uploaded related to the KPSC scam investigation and had thereby damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. The court opined that it was “a fit case to grant ,” as any delay in issuing notice would defeat the relief sought.
The order specifically restrains the defendants from “telecasting, publishing, writing, circulating and uploading any , article, headlines, audio, video, interview, etc concerning Plaintiff and his family members in connection with investigation being conducted by Vidhana Soudha Police in Crime No.89/2026 and investigation being conducted by ED, CID, SIT in respect of KPSC scam of recruitment of Veterinary Officers till next date of hearing.”
Additionally, the defendants are directed to “disable any articles, news item, interview, audio, video, etc already uploaded containing in respect of Plaintiff and his family members in print and electronic media or social media related to investigation of KPSC scam, from public access.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“Careful perusal of averments of the plaint and documents relied upon by plaintiff makes it clear that the defendants being publishers, Broadcasters, Printers, Uploaders of Print, Electronic Media and Social Media, have published and uploaded related to investigation of KPSC Scam of recruitment of Veterinary officers and thereby damaged reputation of plaintiff.”
The court emphasised that the lay in granting the injunction, as the plaintiff stood to suffer loss and hardship if the applications were not allowed.
The Court’s Decision
The court allowed IA No.1 and IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff, issuing a against all 24 named defendants, including , , , , , and , as well as a “” defendant for unidentified publishers. It ordered the defendants to immediately disable all unfounded content already uploaded and directed the registry to publish notice of the order in two Kannada and English newspapers for the unknown defendant.
The plaintiff was directed to comply with , which requires the court to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction and to issue notice to the opposite party without delay.
Implications
The order highlights the tension between press freedom and an individual’s , especially during a live criminal investigation. While the injunction is interim and the defendants have not yet been heard, the court’s decision underscores that unverified, sensationalised reporting during an ongoing probe may be restrained if it causes . The next hearing on 2 November 2026 will likely see the media houses argue their position, and the court will have to balance the public’s right to know against the accused’s right against prejudicial reporting.
All allegations against Kannale remain untested, and the court expressed no view on the merits of the criminal case. The order is a procedural one, granting temporary relief pending a full hearing.
