Sucheta Dalal, co-founder and Managing Editor of Moneylife, has appealed a Delhi court order directing Google and Meta to de-index all content linking businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena of the Tis Hazari Courts heard the appeal on April 13 and issued notices to Sandesara, Google, and Meta. The next hearing is scheduled for April 29.

What the original order did: On April 4, Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma passed an ex parte (one-sided, without hearing the other party) interim injunction directing Google and Meta to de-index, de-list, and de-reference URLs flagged by Sandesara within 36 hours. The court cited the right to be forgotten, ruling that continued circulation of the content would irreparably harm Sandesara’s reputation.

Through a “John Doe” clause, the court extended the order to unknown parties, including media houses, beyond the content specifically identified in the plaint. The order covered three Moneylife articles and a YouTube video. Read MediaNama’s coverage of the original order here.

Why Dalal is challenging it: Sandesara’s suit did not name Dalal’s Moneywise Media LLP as a defendant. The publication only became aware of the order when YouTube sent takedown notices. Her appeal argues that the order “effectively chokes any form of reporting, publication, or criticism” concerning the Sandesaras and Sterling Biotech.

Specifically, the appeal contends that:

• The order is overbroad and fails to identify specific defamatory content.
• The injunction was granted without hearing the publication, violating the principles of natural justice.
• Sandesara seeks relief on behalf of his family and Sterling Biotech Limited, even though neither is named as a party to the suit.
• The content constitutes fair comment on a matter of public interest.

The Sterling Biotech background: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigated the promoters of Sterling Biotech, including the Sandesara family, over allegations of bank fraud amounting to thousands of crores.

In November 2025, the Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings after the promoters deposited Rs 5,100 crore as full and final settlement by December 17, 2025. Sandesara argues that older media reports referring to him as a fugitive and fraudster continue to damage his reputation despite the closure of the case. He invokes the right to be forgotten.

Why this matters: Courts across India are increasingly deploying ex parte injunctions to scrub accountability journalism through platform takedown mechanisms. In September 2025, a similar John Doe order in the Adani defamation case led the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to direct the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts. Multiple courts later set aside those injunctions on appeal. In July 2025, a Bengaluru court targeted 8,800 URLs, including news links, through an ex parte order. MediaNama also tracked over 40 content takedown instances in March 2026 alone.

The Sandesara case takes this trend further. Courts are now invoking the right to be forgotten to erase public interest reporting on settled fraud cases, not just private personal data. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) grants individuals a right to erasure under Section 12 but does not explicitly recognise the right to be forgotten. The Supreme Court of India is currently examining its scope after multiple district courts have used it to remove news reports and court records from public platforms.

Also read:

• Privacy or Free Press? SC to Examine Right to Be Forgotten in India
• Delhi Court Orders Google to De-Index URLs in Major ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Case
• Data Protection Bill: Possibility of misuse of Right to be Forgotten, overlap with Right to Erasure and more #NAMA