New Delhi: In a ruling that may significantly influence online content regulation and intermediary liability in India, the Delhi Tis Hazari Court Saturday granted relief to businessman M.K. Sandesara, promoter of the Sterling Group, directing major digital platforms Google, Meta and others to remove alleged defamatory material concerning him within 72 hours. In doing so, it expanded intermediary liability and clarified safe harbour limits for digital platforms.
Saturday’s order upheld the court’s ex-parte injunction delivered last month that had directed Google, Meta, and other media entities to remove online content linking the Sandesara family to multi-crore bank fraud allegations, despite the closure of criminal proceedings in the case last year by the Supreme Court
The latest decision arose from a civil suit filed by Sandesara alleging defamation, and seeking an injunction and damages against such online content.
The background of the case lies in extensive media reporting on alleged financial irregularities involving the Sterling Group, pertaining to thousands of crores in unpaid bank dues.
Sandesara argued that continued circulation of “defamatory content” had become unjustified in law after the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings upon settlement of liabilities, effectively bringing closure to the dispute.
The Delhi court, while adjudicating the businessman’s interim injunction application, considered the need to balance the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to reputation and dignity under Article 21.
In its observations, the court clarified that while the media enjoys broad protection to report matters of public interest, this protection is not absolute. It held that once reporting goes beyond fair comment and begins to portray individuals in a defamatory manner, the media cannot claim blanket protection; it falls within the ambit of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
A key contention raised by Google and Meta was that they function solely as intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and therefore enjoy safe harbour protection under Section 79, as they do not create or control content.
The court, however, highlighted that the principle of safe harbour is conditional and underlined that “intermediaries are to not only act as mere passive observers but also on their own take steps to protect the privacy of individuals”.
It held that once an intermediary has knowledge of defamatory content through a court order, it has an obligation to act promptly and effectively, and requires no separate court orders for each new URL or repost. It said failure to do so could result in the loss of safe harbour protection under Section 79.
The court also relied on the concept of a dynamic injunction, a legal order that allows courts to extend injunctions beyond identified content to include future or similar instances of the same material. Traditionally used in copyright cases, its application here marks a shift toward stronger mechanisms to control digital defamation.
The court directed the defendants to de-list and remove the identified content as well as any similar material not explicitly listed but connected to the same subject matter. The platforms were given a 72-hour timeframe to comply.
The court underlined that the right of the media to publish is subject to an individual’s right to dignity under Article 21 and that publication of content which is false or made in disregard of the truth may not be protected.
“The media cannot publish any material which is in reckless disregard of the truth or which is palpably false,” the order states.
The ruling is being seen as an important development in India’s evolving legal approach to digital speech, intermediary responsibility and protection of individual rights at a time when digital content increasingly shapes public perception.
Alfreza Ahmed is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)