New Delhi: In an ex-parte injunction last week, Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court directed Google, Meta, and other media entities to remove online content linking businessman Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.
In his plea, Sandesara had alleged defamation, slander and libel, despite the family’s legal exoneration in Supreme Court last year, arguing that online media reportage was negatively portraying the family without taking into account the facts. The suit named Google LLC, Meta Platforms, and John Doe media entities as defendants.
The court has restrained the defendants from publishing or re-publishing content tying the family to Sterling Biotech case, directing immediate de-indexing/de-listing of specified URLs from Google platforms (Search/YouTube) and Meta platforms (Facebook/Instagram) within 36 hours, and issuing summons and notices to the entities, with next hearing set for 20 April.
Brothers Nitin and Chetan Sandesara were the main promoters of Sterling Biotech Limited. In 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) began investigations into allegations of fraud of Rs 5,000 crore by the firm against a group of 17 banks. Amidst the complex and long-running bank fraud investigations, the Sandesara family faced attachment of assets by ED and Interpol red notices.
Subsequently, the Sandesaras approached the Supreme Court for quashing of the ED and CBI cases. In 2025, the apex court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the closure of all criminal proceedings, subject to a one-time settlement of Rs 5,100 crore. This “full and final settlement” was deemed to put all related investigations and litigation to “quietus”.
In the 4 April order, Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma court noted that the Supreme Court order’s finality rendered continued publication to be “imposing criminality on the plaintiff”. Applying the tripartite test—prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss—as elucidated by the top court, the judge ruled in favour of Sandesara, noting that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by grant of relief.
The matter invoked the ‘right to be forgotten’, citing Delhi High Court’s 2024 ruling in ‘Rakesh Jagdish Kalra vs The India Today Group & Ors’, where outdated personal data was ordered to be taken down post the businessman’s acquittal in a criminal case.
“The right to live with dignity, and to have peace of mind are integral to the right to life and liberty under the Constitution,” the court observed. “Any publication, re-publication or circulation of any content in relation to the plaintiff and his family name-concerning the case of Sterling Biotech Limited and bank fraud would amount to reputational harm and stigma.”
The court also emphasised the role of media as the fourth pillar of democracy, calling for responsibility in reportage. It urged media houses to avoid sensationalism and present a balanced view of the facts. Recognising freedom of press under the freedom of speech and expression, the court also spoke of the limitations of said right.
Saumya Sharma is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism and an intern with ThePrint.
Also Read: Why SC has offered to wipe slate clean for Sandesara brothers if they deposit Rs 5,100 cr by Dec 17