Bombay HC Directs Removal Of 'Abusive, Vile' Posts Targeting Union Minister Nitin Gadkari Over E20 Fuel Policy

The Bombay High Court has directed Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media platforms to forthwith remove allegedly defamatory posts targeting Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Jairam Gadkari over the E20 fuel policy, observing that the material is "per se defamatory", "plainly abusive and vile" and has no place on public platforms.

Granting urgent ad-interim relief to Gadkari in his defamation suit, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the offending content, comprising posts, images, morphed photographs, caricatures and video reels circulated on various social media platforms, was not protected as fair comment but appeared to have been published solely to malign and ridicule the Union Minister.

The Court was informed by Senior Advocate Sandeep Ladda, appearing for Gadkari, that the allegedly defamatory material had been compiled in Exhibit "C" to the plaint and that the identities of several users responsible for publishing the content were not known.

These unknown individuals were, therefore, impleaded as Ashok Kumar/John Doe defendants. Counsel further submitted that additional offending material had surfaced even after the institution of the suit, prompting the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint and interim application, which the Court allowed.

After examining the material placed before it, the Court found considerable merit in the plaintiff's submissions.It observed that the offending posts were not only per se defamatory but also "plainly abusive and vile." Noting that some posts contained "nothing more than abuses in the most filthy language", the Court remarked that the morphed photographs and caricatures of the plaintiff were "equally repugnant."

The Court further observed: "Such material should have no place on a public forum/platform, especially when such platforms are accessible to all sections of society, including the young."

Justice Doctor also took note of the speed at which such content spreads on social media, observing that instant modes of communication only compound the damage once such material becomes viral and goes beyond the control of the original uploader.

According to the Court, it is only the concerned social media platforms that can stem such damage by promptly removing plainly abusive, vulgar and vile content.

Holding that a prima facie case for ad-interim relief had been made out, the Court directed Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to immediately pull down all offending material identified in Exhibit "C" to the plaint.

The Court further directed the social media platforms to furnish the plaintiff's advocates with the basic subscriber information of the individuals who uploaded the offending content, including the additional posts subsequently brought on record.

On the plaintiff's request for a mechanism to deal with future uploads of similar content, the Court permitted Gadkari's advocates to communicate details of any such posts to the platforms, which would then be required to remove them.

Counsel appearing for Meta, however, clarified that where any "grey area" arises regarding whether particular content violates its terms of use, the plaintiff would first be required to obtain an appropriate order from the Court directing its removal. The Court recorded the statement.

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union Government assured the Court of full cooperation in the matter. The defendants have been granted three weeks to file their reply affidavits, and the matter has been listed for further hearing on September 2, 2026.

Case Title: Nitin Jairam Gadkari v Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.