An intermediary can be directed to take down only identifiable content that the court has examined, the Bombay High Court has held, ordering X Corp to remove one specific video posted in defiance of an earlier injunction in Serum Institute of India’s defamation suit while refusing sweeping orders against social media platforms.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has partly allowed an interim application by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. and its Chief Executive Officer Adar Poonawalla in their defamation suit, directing X Corp to take down a fresh video uploaded by defendant no. 1, Yohan Tengra, after an injunction of June 5, 2023, and issuing show-cause notices to defendants 1 to 4 on why action should not be taken for disobeying that injunction [Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Yohan Tengra and Others].
Justice Gauri Godse passed the order on September 29, 2026 in Interim Application No. 5853 of 2025 in Suit No. 558 of 2023, after reserving it on June 29, 2026. The suit, and the defendants’ objections to it, are yet to be decided.
Background of the case
The plaintiffs sued for a mandatory injunction against defamatory statements and videos and for Rs 100 crore in damages. Defendant no. 1 is a social media influencer who runs the YouTube channel “Anarchy for Freedom India” and a Twitter handle; defendants 2 and 3 are said to be members of the Awaken India Movement seen in the videos; defendant no. 4 is an online news portal; defendant no. 5 is John Doe; and defendants 6 and 7 are Google LLC and X Corp, the intermediaries whose platforms were used.
On June 5, 2023 the Court restrained defendants 1 to 5 from publishing or circulating the content described in Exhibits E to K or content of a like nature, and directed them to remove it and issue an unconditional apology. The plaintiffs say the order was not complied with and that defendant no. 1 posted a new video the same night saying he would not comply because the order is illegal and does not bind him.
Their take-down notice of June 9, 2023 led Google to remove the content, but X Corp refused by its reply of June 10, 2023, on the ground that the order was not issued against it. The plaintiffs then sought directions, including against the two platforms, in the present application.
Submissions
The plaintiffs argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, now requiring action within three hours of actual knowledge, obliges an intermediary to remove content once a court order is brought to its notice, relying on DBS Bank India Ltd. v. John Doe, Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Himayani Puri v. Kunal Shukla. X Corp argued that it is only a platform, that “actual knowledge” under Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India means an order directing it to take down specified URLs, that intermediaries cannot be made adjudicators of defamation, and that the earlier prayer against it had not been granted. It said the plaintiffs’ remedy is contempt against defendant no. 1, not a proxy battle with the platform, and relied on Google India v. Visaka Industries, Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI Media and Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Rita Bhattacharya.
Defendant no. 1 argued that the plaintiffs had been inactive for nearly three years, that his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be heard first, and that the June 5, 2023 order is a nullity for non-disclosure of a close family and professional association between the plaintiffs and the family of the Judge who passed it, giving rise to an apprehension of bias. These are the defendant’s contentions. The Court held that the June 5, 2023 injunction subsists and is enforceable.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court held that res judicata did not bar the application, since the earlier prayer against X Corp was neither dealt with nor granted, the present prayers arise from later events, and interim orders are not final adjudications. Reading Shreya Singhal and Section 79 of the IT Act together with the Rules, it held that an intermediary can be directed to remove originator content only by a court order in respect of identifiable content considered and held unlawful, and that a general or wide direction would place the intermediary in the position of an adjudicator or censor.
It said the decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs turned on their own facts and did not support wide directions.
On the fresh video, however, the Court found that the earlier directions were admittedly not complied with, that the objectionable content remains on X Corp’s platform, and that the video repeats the impugned allegations and states that defendant no. 1 will not comply with the Court’s order. A prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs, so an interlocutory mandatory injunction was warranted under Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC. It refused the wider prayers against the intermediaries to prevent future uploads and to suspend the accounts of defendants 1 to 4, the last being final relief. It held:
“An intermediary cannot assume the role of an adjudicator or censor.”
Enforcement and the allegations against the Judge
The Court noted that the June 5, 2023 injunction subsists: a review application by defendant no. 3 was dismissed as withdrawn on July 31, 2023, and nothing showed an appeal or recall. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to execute it under Sections 36 and 51 CPC, and their right to take appropriate proceedings on that prayer is kept open. Since defendant no. 1 has admittedly disobeyed the injunction, the Court said it must initiate action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
The Court also deprecated the conduct of defendant no. 1 and his advocates in repeatedly making what it called baseless allegations and derogatory remarks against the Judge who passed the 2023 order. It recalled that by its order of April 6, 2026 it had called upon defendant no. 1’s counsel, the defendant who affirmed the application and the advocate on record to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, that no affidavit was filed, and that the allegations were repeated in this application, in arguments and in written submissions.
Citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Wikimedia Foundation that courts would be justified in initiating contempt against those who scandalise a court, it clarified that these allegations will be dealt with in terms of the April 6 order.
Directions In The Serum Institute Suit
The Court directed X Corp to take down, remove or delete the video uploaded by defendant no. 1, as described in prayer 17(b), and issued show-cause notice to defendants 1 to 4 on why action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC should not be initiated for defying the order of June 5, 2023, returnable on October 27, 2026. The application was partly allowed.
Case Title: Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Yohan Tengra and Others
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5853 of 2025 in Suit No. 558 of 2023
Bench: Justice Gauri Godse, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026 (reserved on June 29, 2026)
Appearance: Advocate Karl Tamboly with Advocates Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora and Chandragupta Patil, instructed by Parinam Law Associates, for the plaintiffs; Advocate Nilesh Ojha with Advocates Shivam Gupta, Sumer Singh and Bhagawan Kasture for defendant no. 1; Advocate Minhas Joshi for defendant no. 6 (Google LLC); Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar with Advocates Nupur Jalan, Sanchli Sethi, Delzeen Dastoor and Parth Munde, instructed by Vedchetan Patil, for defendant no. 7 (X Corp)