A Delhi court on Tuesday heard an appeal filed by finance news platform Moneylife against a trial court order that directed the removal and de-indexing of its reports and videos linked to businessman Manoj Sandesara, his family, and the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. District Judge Sunil Choudhary at Tis Hazari Courts recorded Sandesara’s undertaking that he would not make any further takedown requests during the proceedings. The court will next hear the matter on July 14.
Moneylife Challenges ‘Dynamic Injunction’: Moneylife has challenged a May 16 order passed by a senior civil judge in Sandesara’s suit against Google LLC and others. The order restrained the publication from publishing or circulating further content linking Sandesara and his family to Sterling Biotech and alleged bank fraud. It also directed the de-indexing and de-referencing of specified URLs, along with “such other links not known to the Plaintiff.”
In its appeal, Moneylife argued that the order goes far beyond specific URLs and effectively blocks future reporting on a matter of public interest. It said the court had allowed a form of “dynamic injunction” without any legal basis in defamation law and failed to identify which exact statements in its reports were allegedly false, defamatory, or malicious.
The publication also argued that the trial court did not apply the Supreme Court’s standards for granting pre-trial gag orders in defamation matters, laid down in Bloomberg Television Production Services India v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises. According to the appeal, the order infringes constitutional protections relating to free speech and press freedom.
How the Dispute Started: The dispute began with an ex parte order passed by a Delhi civil court in April, which directed Google, Meta, and other platforms to remove and de-index content related to Sandesara and the Sterling Biotech case within 36 hours. The court relied on the “right to be forgotten,” observing that continued circulation of old reports could damage Sandesara’s reputation after criminal proceedings against the family were closed following a Rs 5,100 crore settlement recorded by the Supreme Court in 2025.
Moneylife and its co-founder, Sucheta Dalal, soon challenged the order, arguing that the court passed the injunction without hearing the publication and allowed takedowns against unnamed media organisations through its “John Doe” directions. In April, another Delhi court dismissed an earlier appeal filed by Moneywise Media LLP, holding that it was premature because the trial court proceedings were still pending.
Background of the Sterling Biotech Case: The Sterling Biotech case stems from allegations of bank fraud of around Rs 5,383 crore involving Sterling Biotech Limited and companies linked to the Sandesara family. The CBI registered the case in 2017, while the Enforcement Directorate later attached assets in India and abroad, reportedly worth around Rs 9,700 crore. Investigators had alleged that loan funds were diverted and laundered through multiple entities. Reuters had earlier reported that Nitin and Chetan Sandesara left India in 2017 using Albanian passports and denied wrongdoing.
Wider Debate Around Online Speech and Takedown Orders: The case also comes amid growing concerns over the increasing use of ex parte injunctions and John Doe orders to remove online criticism, journalism, and consumer commentary before courts fully hear the other side. In recent months, Motorola obtained a Bengaluru court order directing YouTube to block videos critical of its smartphones in India, while the Delhi High Court restrained YouTube channels TechWiser and TechBar from posting disparaging content against AI+ smartphones without hearing them first.
Both cases involved broad injunctions, platform takedown notices, and John Doe clauses extending to unnamed future defendants. Internet Freedom Foundation founding director Apar Gupta had earlier said that courts originally designed John Doe orders for piracy cases involving unidentified infringers, but courts are now expanding them into defamation disputes, creating a chilling effect on online speech and incentivising platforms to over-remove content rather than contest court orders.
The Moneylife case now adds to a wider legal debate around where courts should draw the line between reputation rights and press freedom, especially when injunctions extend beyond specific content and affect future reporting or criticism.
Read more:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。