New Delhi

A Delhi court has directed Google LLC and other digital platforms to remove and restrict access to allegedly defamatory material related to businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family, noting that continued circulation could cause irreparable damage to their reputation.

The order was passed by Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma at the Tis Hazari Courts, who instructed platforms including Meta to de-index, de-list, and de-reference specific links associating the plaintiffs with the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.

In an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the court restrained the defendants from publishing or circulating any content linking the Sandesara family to the case. It also ordered the removal of all such material — even beyond the URLs specifically cited in the plea — within 36 hours.

The court has issued summons in the matter and scheduled the next hearing for April 20, 2026, asking the plaintiff to complete procedural requirements within a week.

The suit, filed by Sandesara, seeks damages and the removal of what he described as false, misleading, and defamatory reports published by various media outlets and hosted online. The plea argues that such content has wrongly portrayed him and his family as fugitives and financial offenders, harming their personal and business reputation.

Appearing for the plaintiff, advocate Hemant Shah sought urgent relief, arguing that despite developments such as stays on proceedings and other legal outcomes, misleading reports continued to remain accessible online.

The court acknowledged the argument invoking the “right to be forgotten,” observing that the persistent availability of such content could result in ongoing harm. It held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in his favour and the likelihood of irreparable injury if relief was not granted.

READ MORE: From LoC to Bollywood: Naseem Mughal played Lulli Dakait in Dhurandhar

Emphasising constitutional principles, the court said that while freedom of speech is protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to privacy and reputation under Article 21.

It also raised concerns about “trial by media,” noting that some reports appeared to attribute criminal wrongdoing without conclusive judicial findings. The court clarified that its observations are preliminary and do not constitute a final ruling on the case.