You can access the original court order from here
A Delhi court has ordered Google LLC and other platforms to remove and stop displaying online content linking businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case, recognising his “right to be forgotten”, after the Supreme Court of India closed all related proceedings.
The order was passed on April 4, 2026, by a civil court at Tis Hazari, which granted urgent, one-sided (ex parte) interim relief. The court directed search engines and platforms to de-index and remove links, articles, and videos about the case within 36 hours, and to restrain further publication on the issue until the case is decided.
Background of the case: The dispute arises from long-running allegations linked to Sterling Biotech Limited and its promoters, including the Sandesara family.
Banks had alleged large-scale defaults and fraud amounting to thousands of crores. Investigations were initiated by multiple agencies, including the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), ED (Enforcement Directorate), and SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office). Media reports over the years described the promoters as “fugitives” and accused them of “bank fraud” and alleged “siphoning public money.”
However, the matter took a turn in November 2025. The Supreme Court allowed the settlement of the dispute after the promoters agreed to pay Rs 5,100 crore. In December 2025, the court recorded that the amount had been deposited and ordered that all related criminal proceedings be quashed, effectively closing the case.
Despite this, older news reports and videos remained online.
What the plaintiff argued: Sandesara told the court that the continued availability of these reports was damaging his reputation, even after the case had been settled and closed.
He argued that:
He also relied on recent court rulings that recognise a person’s “right to be forgotten” — the idea that outdated or harmful information should be removed once it is no longer relevant.
Key legal issue: privacy vs. free speech: The case raises a broader question: when does public interest reporting end, and when does an individual’s right to reputation begin?
Courts in India have increasingly recognised that:
The court also referred to past rulings warning against “trial by media”, where reporting creates a public perception of guilt before courts decide.
What the court said: The judge found that the continued presence of such content could cause serious and lasting damage.
The court noted that many reports used language that directly suggested criminal guilt, even before the final outcome. It also observed that keeping such material online after the case has been concluded could unfairly harm the individual.
The court emphasised that while the media plays a key role in informing the public, it must avoid sensationalism and ensure accuracy.
The court ordered that:
The court clarified that this is only an interim order and does not decide the final merits of the case.
Why this matters: This order strengthens the growing use of the “right to be forgotten” in India, especially in cases where legal proceedings have ended.
It signals that courts may step in when past allegations continue to follow individuals online, even after parties settle disputes, but it also raises concerns about how such orders may affect access to public information and media freedom.
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。