A Delhi court has mandated that Google LLC and several digital platforms remove and limit access to allegedly defamatory content related to businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family. The ruling aims to protect the family’s reputation, which the court noted could suffer irreparable damage due to the ongoing circulation of such material.

This judicial decision was made after an extended legal dispute involving the Sterling Biotech group, highlighting the necessity to balance press freedom with the right to be forgotten and reputation management concerns.

Presiding over the matter, Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma of Tis Hazari Courts ordered the defendants to de-index, de-list, or de-reference particular URLs connecting the Sandesara family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud allegations.

Nature of the Claims Against Media Entities

The court’s recent directives included an ex-parte ad-interim injunction prohibiting the publication, republication, or circulation of materials linking Sandesara or his family to the fraud case. Furthermore, the court extended instructions for the removal of related URLs and articles, even those not specifically named in the plaint, to be executed within thirty-six hours.

Sandesara has filed a lawsuit seeking damages and the removal of reportedly false and misleading content published by various media outlets and indexed by digital platforms like Google. The plaintiff’s legal representatives argued that the materials in question falsely depicted Sandesara and his family as “fugitives,” “bank fraudsters,” and implicated them in “money laundering,” adversely affecting their reputations and business interests.

Advocate Hemant Shah, representing the plaintiffs, emphasised the urgency of the situation and successfully obtained interim protection through the court’s ruling. The plaintiff argued that despite previous Supreme Court orders negating proceedings and other developments, misleading narratives persisted in media reports.

Legal Reasoning and Concerns Raised

In the course of the hearings, the plaintiff also invoked the right to be forgotten, asserting that the ongoing availability of accused allegations was causing continuous harm. After considering the arguments presented, the court held that there was a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and a significant likelihood of irreparable damage in favour of the plaintiff.

The court noted that the pervasive availability of these allegations, despite the case’s developments, could severely harm Sandesara’s reputation and dignity. The court remarked that financial compensation would not suffice as a remedy, highlighting the limits of freedom of speech and expression under Article 21 of the Constitution, which must be balanced with privacy and reputation rights.

Addressing the issue of “trial by media,” the court observed that numerous publications appeared to imply criminality against Sandesara without conclusive judicial evidence. In light of these considerations, the court ordered immediate compliance with its takedown and de-indexing orders within the stipulated timeframe. However, it clarified that these observations are provisional and do not represent a conclusive judgement on the matter.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share