New Delhi [India], April 9 : A Delhi court has ordered Google LLC and other digital platforms to take down and restrict access to allegedly defamatory content concerning businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family, observing that continued circulation of such material could cause irreparable harm to their reputation.
The order comes after a long-standing legal saga involving the Sterling Biotech group and reflects the court's stance on balancing press freedom with the "Right to be Forgotten" and reputation management.
Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma of the Tis Hazari Courts ordered Google and Meta to de-index, de-list, or de-reference specific URLs that link the plaintiff and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.
In an order passed recently, the Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (West), presided over by Richa Sharma, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing, republishing, or circulating any content linking the plaintiff or his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case, and further directed de-indexing, de-listing, and de-referencing of all related URLs and articles, including those not specifically identified in the plaint, within 36 hours.
The court also issued summons in the suit and notice on the injunction application to the defendants, returnable on April 20, 2026, directing the plaintiff to take necessary steps within one week.
The suit has been filed by Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara seeking damages and removal of allegedly false, defamatory, and misleading content published by various media houses and hosted or indexed by digital platforms, including Google.
The plaintiff contended that such content falsely portrayed him and his family as "fugitives," "bank fraudsters," and involved in "money laundering," thereby harming their reputation and business interests.
Advocate Hemant Shah, appearing for the plaintiffs, pressed for urgent ex parte relief and successfully secured the interim protection from the court.
It was argued that despite earlier Supreme Court orders staying proceedings and subsequent developments, including settlement and quashing of cases, media reports continued to circulate misleading narratives.
The plaintiff also invoked the "right to be forgotten," asserting that continued online availability of such content was causing ongoing harm.
After hearing the plaintiff's counsel and perusing the record, the court held that a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm were made out in favour of the plaintiff.
It observed that continued availability of such content, even after developments in the case, could seriously damage reputation and dignity, and that monetary compensation would not be an adequate remedy. The court further emphasised that while freedom of speech and expression is protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced with the right to privacy and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Highlighting concerns over "trial by media," the court noted that several publications appeared to attribute criminality to the plaintiff without any conclusive judicial findings. In these circumstances, it directed immediate compliance with its takedown and de-indexing directions within 36 hours, while clarifying that the observations are prima facie and do not amount to a final determination of the case.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor