Delhi Court Orders Google, Meta To Remove Defamatory Sandesara Content In Sterling Biotech Case

Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma of the Tis Hazari Courts passed the order while hearing a civil suit seeking damages and permanent injunction against the publication and continued circulation of what the plaintiff described as false and disparaging material.

The court directed the defendants, including online platforms and unknown entities (John Does), to de-list, de-reference and remove URLs carrying the impugned content from search results within 36 hours. It further restrained them from publishing or republishing any material concerning Sandesara and his family in connection with the alleged bank fraud case during the pendency of the suit.

Sandesara contended that despite subsequent legal developments, including proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, several media reports continued to portray him and his family as “fugitives”, “fraudsters” and “money launderers”. He argued that such content remained widely accessible online, causing ongoing and irreparable harm to his reputation.

The court noted that the apex court had earlier brought criminal proceedings involving the promoters of Sterling Biotech to a close following settlement of dues. In this backdrop, it found merit in the plaintiff’s submission that continued publication of such allegations, without any conclusive judicial finding, could result in unwarranted stigma.

Relying on settled principles governing the grant of interim injunctions, the court held that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lay in his favour, and irreparable harm would be caused if relief was denied. It observed that the continued digital presence of such material could have a lasting adverse impact, one that monetary compensation alone may not sufficiently remedy.

Importantly, the court underscored the responsibilities of the media in a democratic framework. While acknowledging the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it reiterated that the right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

“It is the foremost responsibility of media to strive to present all sides of a story fairly and balance competing viewpoints,” the court observed, cautioning against sensationalism and stressing the need for accuracy and objectivity in reporting. It added that the media, as the fourth pillar of democracy, bears a heavy responsibility to combat misinformation and ensure that reporting does not cause unjustified reputational harm.

The court further noted that the language used in several headlines and articles appeared to impute criminality to the plaintiff without any definitive adjudication. The accessibility of such content on digital platforms, even after the closure of proceedings, was found to have the potential to cause serious prejudice.

“In this light, such publications are not in the spirit of the right to freedom of press,” the court remarked, emphasising that press freedom must operate within permissible constitutional limits.

Accordingly, the court issued summons in the main suit and notice in the injunction application. The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 20.