Tirupati laddu row: Delhi HC refuses to restrain media publications

The Delhi High Court denied an immediate media gag in the Tirupati laddu ghee case filed by ex-TTD head Y.V. Subba Reddy. The court ruled pre-publication injunctions are rare but cautioned media on future posts, setting a hearing for Jan 29, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has declined to impose an immediate restraint on media publications linked to the Tirupati laddu adulteration controversy, holding that pre-publication injunctions without hearing the opposite side are permissible only in rare and exceptional situations. Justice Amit Bansal, by an order dated December 23, 2025, passed a series of directions while dealing with a civil suit instituted by Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy and another plaintiff against Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging defamatory reportage and online posts concerning the procurement of ghee for the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD).

Court Sets Procedural Framework

At the threshold, the Court allowed several interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiffs. Permission was granted to place additional documents on record under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, file impugned video recordings in electronic form, and seek exemption from filing originals at the present stage.

The plaint was directed to be formally registered as a commercial suit, and summons were issued to all defendants.

The Court laid down a strict procedural schedule, directing the defendants to file their written statements within 30 days of receipt of summons, accompanied by affidavits of admission and denial of the plaintiffs' documents. The plaintiffs were granted liberty to file replications thereafter within the prescribed time. Justice Bansal cautioned that unjustified denial of documents could invite adverse cost orders.

Plaintiffs' Grievance and Arguments

The substantive grievance in the suit relates to publications allegedly accusing the plaintiffs of misconduct in connection with ghee procurement for offerings at the Tirupati temple. Plaintiff No.1 had earlier served as Chairman of the TTD management board from June 2019 to August 2023. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for the plaintiffs, drew the Court's attention to pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, contending that investigations into the alleged adulteration were still underway and that publishing accusatory material at this stage was unwarranted.

Court Declines Ex Parte Injunction, Issues Caution

While issuing notice on the application seeking an interim injunction, the Court declined to grant ex parte relief. Emphasising settled law, Justice Bansal observed that interim gag orders without hearing the defendants are not the norm and relied on the Supreme Court's decisions to underline the need for restraint at the interim stage. At the same time, the Court issued a cautionary note, clarifying that any fresh publications or posts made after the date of the order would be treated as having been issued with full knowledge of the ongoing proceedings and would entail legal consequences of their own.

The suit and the interim application have been directed to be listed next on January 29, 2026, for further consideration after completion of pleadings. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)