New Delhi, Apr 9 A Delhi court has ordered Google LLC and several media houses to remove and take down allegedly defamatory content linking businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller Richa Sharma was hearing a civil suit seeking damages and directions to de-index and remove online content, including news reports and videos, which the plaintiff claimed were "false, malicious and defamatory".
"In the considered opinion of the court, the plaintiff has become entitled to the ad-interim ex parte relief to the effect that the defendants No. 1 to 3 (Google LLC, Meta Platforms and John Doe), their agents, employees or any person acting on their behalf are restrained from publishing, re-publishing or circulating any further content in relation to the plaintiff and his family name concerning the case of Sterling Biotech Limited and bank fraud and to de-index, de-list and de-reference the URLs and content of the said articles as detailed in the plaint and such other links not known to the plaintiff relating the subject matter in issue from their respective website," the court said in its April 4 order, directing immediate compliance within 36 hours.
The plaintiff had sought an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from "publishing, re-publishing or circulating any further content" relating to him and his family in connection with the Sterling Biotech case, and for removal of existing links from search engines and online platforms.
According to the plaint, Sandesara alleged that various media reports described him and his family as "fugitives" involved in "bank fraud" and "siphoning public money," which he claimed were baseless and had severely damaged his reputation.
The suit contended that such content continued to remain accessible online despite earlier Supreme Court orders staying proceedings and subsequent developments, including settlement and quashing of cases. It argued that the continued publication violated his fundamental right to privacy and reputation.
It was further submitted that the "permanence of digital information and easily accessible online records" was causing ongoing harm to the plaintiff's dignity, financial interests and business opportunities.
The court observed that ex parte injunctions are to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, requiring a prima facie case, a balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable harm.
The court observed that the referred articles in the plaint were "not in the spirit of the right to freedom of press as the same is not an absolute right and is to be exercised within permissible limits". The publications disparaged the plaintiffs "without any concrete finding" at the time of publication.
"The language used in the headings of the articles as reproduced on record is mainly imposing criminality on the plaintiff," said the court, as it observed that these articles, being accessible to every user on the platforms, can damage the reputation of the plaintiff to an extent that cannot be compensated by money.
"Thus, as a sequel to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the three principal ingredients -- prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss -- exist in favour of the plaintiff," the court said.
The court also observed that the media, as the fourth pillar of democracy, must ensure accurate, objective and balanced reporting while avoiding sensationalism. It stressed vigilance against misinformation and noted that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The court ordered that the summons in the suit and notice on the injunction application be served on the defendants. Listing the matter for April 20, the court directed the parties to take all necessary steps within one week.
