The Bombay High Court has granted Sukhwinder Kaur, widely known as Radhe Maa, permission to proceed with a civil suit against Google LLC and other respondents, citing the protection of her personality rights and seeking relief from alleged online disparagement. The ruling, delivered by Justice Abhay Ahuja on October 9, 2026, centers on the court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit where significant components of the cause of action span global digital platforms and involve entities operating outside the immediate territory of the court.

By allowing the petition for leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, 1865, the High Court has cleared the primary procedural hurdle required to initiate litigation against international digital service providers when parts of the grievance arise within the local jurisdiction. This decision follows a series of arguments presented by the petitioner regarding the localized impact of global online content.

Establishing the Legal Foundation for Jurisdiction

The core of the legal debate rested on whether the Bombay High Court could exercise authority over a suit involving respondents situated outside India, particularly when the dissemination of content occurs through worldwide internet platforms. Representing the petitioner, Advocate Hasmit Trivedi emphasized that the harm inflicted upon the petitioner’s personality rights and goodwill was tangible and localized. He argued that the petitioner resides within the court's jurisdiction and conducts extensive spiritual and charitable activities in the same area.

The legal team further submitted that the harm to her reputation was a direct consequence of content accessible to local users. They highlighted that Google and other related respondents not only make their platforms available to users within the jurisdiction but also derive substantial advertising revenue from this local engagement. The counsel maintained that because the platform interactions and the financial benefit derived from the local user base were linked to the impugned content, a material part of the cause of action had legitimately arisen within the territory of the court.

The petitioner relied upon the detailed averments made in paragraphs 15 through 18 of the Leave Petition, as well as paragraphs 51 and 52 of the proposed Plaint, to underscore the connection between the global digital dissemination and the specific injuries suffered by the petitioner in Mumbai.

Addressing Global Dissemination and Local Harm

During the proceedings, the court took note of the petitioner's argument that the nature of online platforms complicates traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Because the allegedly defamatory or disparaging content was being circulated globally rather than being confined to a single geographic area, the respondents sought to challenge the viability of the suit within a local High Court.

Addressing this, the petitioner argued that the court must adopt a practical approach to modern digital disputes. By arguing that the "harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill and personality rights is suffered within the jurisdiction of this Court," the petitioner successfully established that the location of the victim and the location of the receipt of the content are sufficient grounds for the court to exercise its jurisdiction . This perspective acknowledges that in the digital age, a "material part of the cause of action " occurs wherever a platform interacts with a user and facilitates the consumption of damaging content.

Justice Abhay Ahuja, after reviewing the documentation and hearing the arguments, found merit in the petitioner's stance. Upon perusing the Leave Petition and the proposed Plaint, the court observed that the submissions provided a sufficient basis to grant the requested leave. The court’s order stated, “I am of the view that leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent be granted. Accordingly, the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a).”

Practical Implications for Personality Rights Litigation

The decision serves as a significant indicator of how the judiciary is adapting to the challenges posed by the borderless nature of the internet. By permitting the suit, the court has effectively recognized that individuals who are publicly targeted by online content can seek recourse in the jurisdictions where they live and where their professional or spiritual reputations are primarily established, regardless of where the platform hosting the content is headquartered.

While the order grants the necessary permission to institute the suit, it remains focused entirely on procedural jurisdiction. The court has not yet addressed the merits of the underlying allegations regarding personality rights infringement or the truthfulness of the claims of disparagement. Those substantive issues will be determined during the subsequent phases of the trial, where both sides will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the content in question.

The current order allows the suit to proceed to the next stage of judicial scrutiny, marking a critical success for the petitioner in her quest to address the content disseminated on digital platforms. Following the grant of leave, the petitioner is now empowered to formally serve the respondents and proceed with the litigation process. This ruling reinforces the capacity of the Bombay High Court to assert its authority in disputes involving global technology entities, provided that the impact of their digital footprint on a citizen's rights is shown to have occurred within the court's reach. The litigation is expected to move forward with the formal filing of the suit, following which the parties will await further directions from the court on the discovery and hearing schedule.