The Delhi High Court on December 23, 2025, refused to grant an immediate ex-parte injunction in a high-profile defamation suit linked to alleged irregularities in the procurement of ghee for the Tirumala temple. While the court agreed to hear the matter, it chose to first give the media defendants an opportunity to respond before passing any restraining orders.
Background of the Case
The suit was filed by Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy and another, seeking restraint against multiple defendants, including media entities, for publishing allegedly defamatory content. The publications accused the plaintiffs of wrongdoing in the procurement of ghee used for preparing laddu prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD).
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Curative Pleas in Land Acquisition Case, Says No Grounds Within Limited Review Scope
Plaintiff No.1 had earlier served as Chairman of the TTD Board between June 2019 and August 2023. According to the plaintiffs, the allegations surfaced while investigations into the so-called “laddu adulteration” issue are still ongoing.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for the plaintiffs, argued that continued publication at this stage could irreversibly damage reputations. He relied on earlier orders of the Supreme Court of India passed in September and October 2024, which noted that the issue remained under investigation.
Justice Amit Bansal first dealt with a series of procedural applications. The court allowed the plaintiffs to place additional documents on record, permitted them to submit impugned video recordings in a pen drive, and granted exemptions regarding filing of originals at this stage.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Goregaon Pearl Society's Curative Pleas, Ends Long-Running Housing Dispute
The plaint was formally registered as a commercial suit. Summons were issued to all defendants, with some accepting service through counsel. The court fixed timelines for filing written statements, affidavits of admission or denial, and replications, making it clear that unjustified denial of documents could attract costs.
Court’s Observations
On the crucial request for an immediate injunction, the court struck a cautious note. Referring to settled law, the bench observed that “ex-parte ad interim injunctions could only be granted under exceptional circumstances.”
Justice Bansal referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., emphasizing that freedom of publication cannot be curtailed without hearing the other side.
Read also:- Supreme Court Mandates Timelines for Oral Arguments, Issues SOP to Streamline Hearings and Cut Delays
“In my prima facie view, it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their defence,” the court observed, declining to restrain the existing publications at this stage.
Decision of the Court
While refusing the ex-parte gag order, the High Court issued notice to all defendants and directed them to file their replies within four weeks. Rejoinders, if any, are to follow within two weeks thereafter.
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Holds Vadodara Municipal Corporation Liable in Fatal Stray Bull Accident
Importantly, the court added a note of caution. Any publication made after the date of the order would be deemed to have been made with full knowledge of the ongoing proceedings and “would have its own consequences.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 29 January 2026.
Case Title: Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy & Anr. v. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CS(OS) 954/2025
Case Type: Commercial Suit – Defamation & Injunction
Decision Date: 23 December 2025
