The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has issued an urgent ad-interim order against Facebook , mandating the immediate removal of several profiles impersonating Leena Gandhi Tewari, the chairperson of a prominent pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. The directive follows evidence presented to the court demonstrating that these fraudulent accounts were not only harming the philanthropist's professional and social reputation but were actively utilized to orchestrate financial scams against unsuspecting individuals. Justice Arif S. Doctor, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the protection of the plaintiff’s reputation and the prevention of further victimization of the public necessitated swift judicial intervention.

The court’s decision arrives after the plaintiff, who is widely recognized for her contributions to social development and philanthropic initiatives, discovered that her name and likeness were being systematically exploited by unknown entities. In her suit , the plaintiff noted that while she maintains a consciously low public profile, the emergence of these morphed photographs and unauthorized accounts forced her to seek legal recourse to safeguard her personal brand and the integrity of her charitable work.

Exploiting Philanthropic Goodwill

Central to the court’s order was the alarming nature of the fraud facilitated by these impersonated accounts. The court reviewed communications from an individual who believed he had been interacting with the plaintiff for over a year. After suffering property damage due to severe flooding, the victim contacted the fake profile for assistance. The operators of the account, posing as the philanthropist, promised financial aid but conditioned the transfer of funds on the victim sending ₹5,000 via a digital payment platform to a purported company representative.

The victim’s testimony, as noted in the court’s proceedings, captured the deceptive nature of the scheme: "It was only later that I realized I had been chatting with a fake ID for about a year, believing all along that I was speaking to you. I had been misled because I saw many of your photos and other details on Facebook , which made me assume the account actually belonged to you."

Justice Doctor highlighted that this case served as a clear indicator of how the platform’s failure to police its content enabled criminal activity. The court noted that the plaintiff had already reached out to the platform to address the misuse of her identity, but the responses were largely automated and failed to address the substance of her grievances.

Legal Hurdles and Judicial Intervention

During the hearings, the court scrutinized the failure of the intermediary to adhere to established protocols. It was pointed out that the platform had not acted upon the complaints despite the clear provisions outlined in the Information Technology ( Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 . The bench found the lack of responsiveness particularly problematic given that the accounts were clearly violating the plaintiff’s rights to her own likeness and reputation.

In its assessment of the evidence, the court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case. Observing the gravity of the potential damage, the court noted, "The recognition that the Plaintiff has received for her philanthropic work alone is telling and deserves protection." The court affirmed that the balance of convenience remained firmly in favor of the plaintiff, as the continued presence of the fake accounts posed an ongoing risk to both her reputation and the financial security of members of the public who might be deceived by the fraudulent persona.

Identifying the Anonymous Operators

The order delivered by Justice Doctor is expansive in its scope, extending beyond a simple takedown mandate. In addition to being ordered to suspend and disable access to the five identified Facebook pages, the platform has been directed to preserve all associated records, including IP access logs, registration data, and communication history related to the account holders.

Furthermore, the court has explicitly ordered Facebook to disclose the basic subscriber information of the individuals responsible for creating and operating these accounts. This data is critical to the plaintiff’s strategy, as it will allow for the identification of the anonymous perpetrators. The court has granted the plaintiff liberty to amend her suit to formally implead these individuals as defendants once their identities are unearthed through the forensic data provided by the platform.

The court’s order effectively bars the operators of these accounts from utilizing the plaintiff’s name, image, or likeness in any capacity. By mandating the preservation of logs, the court has ensured that evidence of the fraud is not purged from the platform’s servers, providing a path toward potential criminal or civil liability for the anonymous parties once they are identified.

The matter is now scheduled to be revisited on December 2, 2026 . Until such time, the ad-interim reliefs granted by the court remain in full force. The litigation highlights the increasing necessity for judicial oversight in managing digital impersonation, particularly when those impersonations are weaponized to exploit philanthropic trust. The court’s proactive stance underscores a robust expectation that digital intermediaries must take substantive action when provided with credible reports of impersonation and fraudulent activity, rather than relying on automated procedural responses that allow such harms to persist unabated. As the case proceeds, the focus will shift from the platform’s compliance to the identification and accountability of the individuals hiding behind these fraudulent profiles.