After Patient’s Death, Karnataka HC Temporarily Bars Husband, Local Media Accounts From Circulating Hospital-Incident Videos Until Trial Court Decides Injunction Plea

Petitioner No. 1, a doctor and proprietor of petitioner No. 2 hospital, treated Shilpa Jagadish Bhajantri, who was admitted with a chest-region cyst on 31 August 2026. She developed complications during a blood transfusion, was later shifted to another hospital, and died on 6 September 2026.

The petitioners alleged that video clips concerning the incident, attributing negligence to them, were created and circulated by respondents 1–7. A complaint against the petitioners was under investigation before the District Health Officer.

The petitioners filed O.S. No. 952/2026 and sought interim relief. The trial court issued emergent notice and listed the matter for 16 November 2026, but did not grant the requested ex parte injunction.

The petitioners then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment does not cite any statute, precedent, or specific test governing interim injunctions. It applies the principle that, where an ongoing official inquiry and pending proceedings may be adversely affected by public circulation of material, and such circulation may cause irreversible hardship, temporary restraint may be justified until the trial court considers the application on notice.

The Court noted that the complaint against the petitioners remained under investigation and that the petitioners had already approached the trial court for interim relief.

It accepted that continued circulation of video clips concerning the incident could amount to a media trial, adversely affect due process, and cause irreversible hardship. In light of those circumstances and the urgency claimed, the Court granted temporary restraint pending the trial court’s determination of the application.

The Court did not determine the truth of the allegations or the merits of the underlying dispute.

The trial court was directed to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders; the respondents were permitted to seek modification or vacation of the restraint before that court.