<p>An Additional City Civil and Sessions Court on Saturday granted temporary injunction restraining media houses from publishing content against six cabinet ministers, even as a few more ministers are likely to seek a similar legal refuge. </p>.<p>Going by Co-operation Minister S T Somashekar’s statement, at least six more ministers are likely to move the court. In the wake of the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/ramesh-jarkiholi" target="_blank">Ramesh Jarkiholi</a> scandal, six ministers had <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/six-karnataka-ministers-move-court-seeking-injunction-against-media-houses-958674.html" target="_blank">approached the court</a> on Friday, moving an interlocutory application (IA) seeking ex-parte interim injunction. These include Labour Minister Shivaram Hebbar, Agriculture Minister B C Patil, Cooperation Minister S T Somashekar, Health and Family Welfare Minister K Sudhakar, Municipal Administration Minister K C Narayan Gowda and Urban Development Minister Byrati Basavaraj. The ministers claimed that they too were probable targets of defamation orchestrated by vested interests. </p>.<p>Somashekar told reporters there was a concerted effort to defame all the “rebel MLAs” who had joined BJP in 2018. Somashekar said they moved the court as a forethought. “Five or six more ministers will approach the court. We were informed about an organised attempt to create chaos during the upcoming legislature session, by releasing defamatory material against all of us. We believe this is orchestrated by those who hold us responsible for bringing down the coalition government. Such instances of defamation can undo our political career built over decades of hard work,” he said. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/narayana-gowda-defends-application-for-injunction-958979.html" target="_blank">Narayana Gowda defends application for injunction</a></strong></p>.<p>Defending their move, Health Minister K Sudhakar said the Jarkiholi scandal pointed towards a larger political vendetta. “These are hit-and-run defamation instances. By the time the inquiry is completed, the person’s image is already tarnished and the complainants abscond. We need to put an end to this unethical culture.” </p>.<p>However, it seems that the BJP leaders are divided over the ministers seeking refuge in an injunction. Many BJP leaders chose to maintain a distance from the issue calling it their personal decision.</p>.<p><strong>Conspiracy, says Yogeeshwar</strong></p>.<p>Tourism Minister C P Yogeeshwar alleged on Saturday that the Jarkiholi scandal was a larger political conspiracy. "This is orchestrated by vested interests in Kanakapura and Belagavi. They will have to face the consequences in future," the minister said. It was Jarkiholi who lobbied for his induction into the cabinet. </p>.<p><strong>TV channel moves caveat</strong></p>.<p>Meanwhile, a private TV channel moved a caveat requesting the court not to pass orders on the interlocutory application without hearing on the caveat. However, the court said it cannot consider the caveat since the orders on the IA were dictated and made ready.</p>
<p>An Additional City Civil and Sessions Court on Saturday granted temporary injunction restraining media houses from publishing content against six cabinet ministers, even as a few more ministers are likely to seek a similar legal refuge. </p>.<p>Going by Co-operation Minister S T Somashekar’s statement, at least six more ministers are likely to move the court. In the wake of the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/ramesh-jarkiholi" target="_blank">Ramesh Jarkiholi</a> scandal, six ministers had <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/six-karnataka-ministers-move-court-seeking-injunction-against-media-houses-958674.html" target="_blank">approached the court</a> on Friday, moving an interlocutory application (IA) seeking ex-parte interim injunction. These include Labour Minister Shivaram Hebbar, Agriculture Minister B C Patil, Cooperation Minister S T Somashekar, Health and Family Welfare Minister K Sudhakar, Municipal Administration Minister K C Narayan Gowda and Urban Development Minister Byrati Basavaraj. The ministers claimed that they too were probable targets of defamation orchestrated by vested interests. </p>.<p>Somashekar told reporters there was a concerted effort to defame all the “rebel MLAs” who had joined BJP in 2018. Somashekar said they moved the court as a forethought. “Five or six more ministers will approach the court. We were informed about an organised attempt to create chaos during the upcoming legislature session, by releasing defamatory material against all of us. We believe this is orchestrated by those who hold us responsible for bringing down the coalition government. Such instances of defamation can undo our political career built over decades of hard work,” he said. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/narayana-gowda-defends-application-for-injunction-958979.html" target="_blank">Narayana Gowda defends application for injunction</a></strong></p>.<p>Defending their move, Health Minister K Sudhakar said the Jarkiholi scandal pointed towards a larger political vendetta. “These are hit-and-run defamation instances. By the time the inquiry is completed, the person’s image is already tarnished and the complainants abscond. We need to put an end to this unethical culture.” </p>.<p>However, it seems that the BJP leaders are divided over the ministers seeking refuge in an injunction. Many BJP leaders chose to maintain a distance from the issue calling it their personal decision.</p>.<p><strong>Conspiracy, says Yogeeshwar</strong></p>.<p>Tourism Minister C P Yogeeshwar alleged on Saturday that the Jarkiholi scandal was a larger political conspiracy. "This is orchestrated by vested interests in Kanakapura and Belagavi. They will have to face the consequences in future," the minister said. It was Jarkiholi who lobbied for his induction into the cabinet. </p>.<p><strong>TV channel moves caveat</strong></p>.<p>Meanwhile, a private TV channel moved a caveat requesting the court not to pass orders on the interlocutory application without hearing on the caveat. However, the court said it cannot consider the caveat since the orders on the IA were dictated and made ready.</p>