Google opposed Justice AHMD Nawaz’s plea, arguing that India does not legally recognise the “right to be forgotten” under the DPDP Act, 2023. It also questioned the maintainability of the case, citing jurisdiction issues and saying a foreign judge cannot directly invoke constitutional remedies in India.
Google has opposed a defamation petition filed by Sri Lankan Supreme Court judge Justice AHMD Nawaz before the Karnataka High Court, raising important legal questions about jurisdiction, fundamental rights, and the “right to be forgotten” under Indian law.
The matter concerns Justice Nawaz’s request to remove certain allegedly defamatory online articles published by Sri Lankan media outlets.
During the hearing, Google, through its counsel Advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni, argued that the relief sought by Justice Nawaz is not legally sustainable under Indian law. He pointed out that the “right to be forgotten” is not explicitly recognised under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act).
Kulkarni explained that although this right was earlier proposed in the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, it was ultimately not included in the final legislation passed by Parliament. Emphasising this point, he remarked,
“the right to be forgotten itself has been forgotten.”
Google further argued that Justice Nawaz, being a Sri Lankan citizen, cannot claim enforcement of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution in the same manner as Indian citizens. The counsel submitted that such constitutional protections are generally available only to citizens or individuals within Indian territory under specific conditions.
In addition, Google invoked the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Indian courts may not be the appropriate forum to decide a dispute that largely concerns events, parties, and publications based in Sri Lanka.
Another key objection raised by Google was procedural. The company contended that Justice Nawaz had unnecessarily made the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) a party to the case only to directly approach the High Court. According to Google, even if a genuine grievance exists, the petitioner should have first approached a civil court instead of filing a writ petition before a constitutional court.
On the other hand, Justice Nawaz’s counsel strongly opposed these arguments. He clarified that the petition is not seeking monetary damages but only the removal of defamatory content, making a civil suit less appropriate.
The counsel also argued that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, applies to all “persons” and is not limited only to Indian citizens. Therefore, Justice Nawaz, despite being a foreign national, is entitled to seek protection under this provision.
Further justifying the choice of forum, the petitioner’s lawyer stated that since Google has a presence in India, approaching an Indian court for content takedown is both practical and reasonable.
He also highlighted Justice Nawaz’s connection with India, noting that he has visited the country in academic roles, including as a guest faculty member at Lovely Professional University and as a participant in conferences.
Importantly, the counsel argued that approaching Sri Lankan courts would not be appropriate for Justice Nawaz, as he is a sitting judge of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court. Filing a case there could create a conflict of interest and raise concerns about impartiality, effectively making him a judge in his own cause.
Therefore, India was chosen as a neutral jurisdiction to seek justice.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum is currently hearing the matter and has scheduled the next hearing for April 28.
Justice Nawaz’s petition seeks the removal of four specific articles—one published in 2015 by Colombo Telegraph, two more from the same outlet in 2020, and another published in 2020 by Lanka e-News.
According to the plea, these articles were published during his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. Despite being later cleared for elevation to the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, he claims that the continued circulation of these articles is damaging his reputation.
The petition also states that such content not only harms his personal image but also affects the dignity and integrity of the judiciary as an institution.
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court had issued notice to Google as well as the two Sri Lankan news platforms—Colombo Telegraph and Lanka e-News—asking them to respond to the allegations.
The case now raises significant legal questions around cross-border defamation, jurisdiction of Indian courts, and the evolving scope of digital rights like the “right to be forgotten” in India.
Case Title:
AHMD Nawaz v Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Click Here to Read More On Google
