Can posts against a Kirori Mal College Professor be taken down before the account holders are heard? A Tis Hazari civil court has granted an ex-parte interim injunction, directing X, Meta and LinkedIn to remove identified posts it found prima facie derogatory and abusive, and WhatsApp to act against a group.
New Delhi: Vineeta Sharma, an Associate Professor of Economics at Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, has obtained an interim order from a civil court at Tis Hazari under which X Corp, LinkedIn and Meta Platforms must remove or disable access to specifically identified posts against her, while WhatsApp has been directed to take steps against a group in which messages about her were circulated [Vineeta v. X Corp & Ors.].
The ex-parte ad-interim injunction was passed on October 16, 2026 by Civil Judge Sahil Monga (Civil Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts) in her civil suit. The Court held that the posts prima facie contained derogatory and abusive remarks, including statements allegedly advocating violence against her.
The finding
“The impugned publications, prima facie, contain derogatory and abusive remarks, including statements allegedly advocating violence against the plaintiff. The continued circulation of such content may cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and dignity.”
Having found a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in her favour, the Court nonetheless limited itself to “limited interim protection, subject to the rights of the defendants and the freedom of lawful expression”.
What she told the Court
As recorded in the order, the plaintiff alleged that posts on X, Instagram, LinkedIn and WhatsApp carried false allegations, sexually derogatory remarks and threats of physical violence against her, and that their continued circulation endangered her reputation, dignity and personal safety. The relevant URLs and supporting documents were placed on record, and the Court also allowed her application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to file additional URLs.
Some of the posts circulated online had accused her of instigating and supporting young demonstrators at the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests. The order does not examine that allegation. The defendants are yet to file their response, and the injunction was granted without hearing the account holders.
What the platforms must do
The Court directed:
- X Corp to remove or disable access to the content at the URLs identified in the plaint and documents, and to preserve the electronic records;
- WhatsApp LLC to take appropriate steps in accordance with law about the identified group, including suspension or restriction, as warranted by the record;
- LinkedIn Corporation and Meta Platforms (for Instagram) to remove or disable access to the specifically identified content;
- Defendant No. 5 to refrain from publishing, reposting or circulating the identified content, including through the X account named in the plaint; and
- the four platforms to preserve the available electronic records of the identified accounts and posts.
Should substantially similar content appear again, the plaintiff may flag it to the platforms, which must address the grievance within 48 hours, failing which she may return to the Court. The directions remain in force until the next date of hearing. Fresh summons will issue, and the matter is listed on December 14, 2026 for compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Why the order matters
Rather than a sweeping gag, the order reaches only the URLs and accounts specifically identified by the plaintiff, and it expressly preserves lawful expression. That is the tailored approach civil courts are taking to online abuse. The 48-hour complaint mechanism for copycat posts gives the plaintiff a quicker remedy without the Court having to pre-approve future takedowns.
The order is ex-parte and interim. Whether the posts are in fact defamatory, and what weight the defendants’ right to comment on public events carries, remain to be decided once they are heard.
Case Title: Vineeta v. X Corp & Ors. [CS SCJ No. 1479/2026]
Court: Civil Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Sahil Monga
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Vrinda Grover, Naman Kumar and Devika Tulsiani for the plaintiff; Swati Aggarwal and Saumya Pawar for defendant No. 2; Abhishek K. Singh and Chitrangla Saini for defendant No. 3; Yash Karunakaran and Bhavnish Kaur for defendant No. 4
