The City Civil Court in Hyderabad on Friday issued a gag order restraining digital and satellite media channels, along with social media platforms, from publishing or circulating any defamatory or objectionable content against Bandi Sanjay Kumar in connection with a case involving his son, Bandi Bhageerath.
According to the court order, all media outlets, social media platforms and intermediaries, including Facebook, X, Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube, have been directed not to publish, telecast, circulate, forward or post any content deemed defamatory, abusive or objectionable in relation to the matter.
The court also ordered the immediate removal of all allegedly defamatory content already available on digital platforms, satellite channels and social media networks concerning the case.
The order, described as a blanket injunction and gag order, was issued to safeguard the dignity, privacy and legal rights of the parties involved, while ensuring that ongoing legal proceedings are not influenced by media trials, sensational coverage or defamatory propaganda.
The court further warned that any violation or non-compliance with its directions would invite serious consequences, including proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and other applicable laws.
The order specifically stated that no media organisation or social media platform should mention the name of Bandi Sanjay Kumar in connection with the case involving Bandi Bhageerath.
The controversy arose after allegations and reports relating to Bandi Bhageerath’s alleged involvement in a minor girl rape case surfaced on social media and certain media platforms, triggering widespread discussion and political attention.
Supporters of the Union Minister alleged that defamatory and unverified content was being circulated with the intention of maligning the reputation of the family.
In response, Sanjay moved a petition before the Hyderabad civil court seeking protection against what was described as defamatory reporting and social media commentary.
The petition reportedly argued that unchecked dissemination of allegations could prejudice legal proceedings and violate the privacy and reputation of the individuals concerned.
After hearing the matter, the court granted interim relief by issuing the gag order and directing the removal of existing content pending further proceedings in the case.
