Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. not a necessary party as Facebook service is controlled by Meta Platforms Inc. in the USA; High Court emphasizes proper adjudication of intermediary liability under IT Act.
In a significant ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, set aside the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Papumpare, which had rejected the deletion application of Facebook India Online Services Private Limited from a defamation suit filed by Mr. Pema Khandu. The suit involved multiple respondents including media groups and major social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, and WhatsApp.
The defamation suit (T.S. No. 26/2022) was instituted by Mr. Khandu against Awadh TV Group, their agents, and various intermediaries for allegedly circulating defamatory content via their official Facebook pages, Twitter handles, and other online platforms. The plaintiff sought declarations, injunctions, removal of defamatory content, and compensation amounting to Rs. 20 crores.
Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking deletion from the array of parties. The petitioner contended that it neither operates nor controls the Facebook service, which is managed by Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) headquartered in California, USA. Facebook India claimed it only provides online support services such as technical and marketing support and does not have any authority to remove or regulate content hosted on the Facebook platform.
The Trial Court had rejected this application, reasoning that Facebook India’s presence might be necessary for complete adjudication of the suit and that there was no sufficient documentation to establish the precise legal relationship and liability between Facebook India and Meta Platforms Inc. The Trial Court also expressed concerns that deleting Facebook India might hamper effective enforcement of any court orders.
On appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Gauhati High Court carefully examined the pleadings, submissions, and judicial precedents including judgments from the Delhi High Court and this Court’s earlier orders. The High Court noted the undisputed fact that Meta Platforms Inc. is the actual data controller and operator of the Facebook service globally, including India. Facebook India is a subsidiary engaged primarily in support services without control over content or the Facebook platform’s operations.
The Court relied on established principles that a necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed and that subsidiaries and parent companies are distinct legal entities. Since Meta Platforms Inc. has already been arrayed as a party, Facebook India’s presence was not essential for adjudication. The High Court also highlighted Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which grants intermediaries immunity from liability for third-party content if they comply with due diligence requirements. Facebook India claimed such immunity, which the Trial Court failed to consider adequately.
Furthermore, the High Court emphasized the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, referencing Supreme Court precedents that restrict interference to cases of jurisdictional errors or perversity. The Court found that the Trial Court’s rejection of the deletion application was based on an erroneous assumption without proper appreciation of the material on record.
Consequently, the Gauhati High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated April 1, 2025, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Trial Court was directed to reconsider the deletion application of Facebook India under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC and Section 151 CPC, taking into account the submissions and legal principles on intermediary liability and party necessity.
This judgment clarifies that subsidiaries providing support services without operational control over digital platforms cannot be held liable as necessary parties in suits concerning content hosted on such platforms. The decision reinforces the significance of proper party array and the application of intermediary liability protections under the IT Act.
Bottom Line:
Intermediary Liability - Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. is not a necessary party to the suit as it does not operate or control the Facebook service, which is managed by Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) in the United States. The trial court's order rejecting the deletion of Facebook India from the array of parties was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 1, Rule 10(2), Section 151; Constitution of India Article 227; Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 79
