Back
Delhi Court Silences Echoes of 'Fugitive' Labels: Google, Meta Ordered to Erase Sterling Biotech Fraud Links
In a swift ruling, Delhi's has restrained Google LLC, Meta Platforms (operating YouTube and Facebook), and unnamed entities from further circulating content branding Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara and his family as fugitives in the long-running Sterling Biotech bank fraud saga. Presided over by Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma on , the order mandates de-indexing and removal of specified URLs within 36 hours, invoking the plaintiff's after the quashed all related criminal probes.
The Sterling Shadow: From NPA Crisis to Vindication
Manoj Sandesara, a former director in Sterling Group companies like Sterling Biotech Limited (SBL), sought refuge in court after years of media scrutiny tied to the group's non-performing assets (NPAs) totaling over ₹7,626 crores. SBL, a pioneer in gelatine and anti-cancer drugs, faced external setbacks like regulatory shifts, but promoters repaid substantial sums, offered securities like a $3 billion Nigerian oil block, and negotiated a ₹6,457 crore one-time settlement (OTS).
Proceedings by , , , and others alleged fraud and money laundering, but the in Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 37/2020 and 48/2020 stayed investigations from , culminating in a , order quashing all FIRs, ECIRs, attachments, and fugitive declarations—conditional on a ₹5,100 crore deposit, fully complied with by . Despite this closure, media reports persisted, labeling the family as "fugitives," "bank fraudsters," and "money launderers."
Plaintiff's Cry Against '': No Defendants to Counter
Sandesara argued the content—videos, articles on YouTube, Google search results—was , ignoring stays and exoneration. He highlighted phrases like "siphoning public money" and "defrauded banks," claiming irreparable harm to privacy, reputation, and business under . Citing the from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, he urged de-referencing URLs, as perpetual online stigma outweighed public interest post-acquittal.
With no appearance from defendants (summons issued returnable ), the court focused on , , and per .
Judicial Scales Tip Toward Privacy: Precedents Seal the Injunction
Judge Sharma meticulously applied the four-prong test for relief, finding media reports post- orders breached fairness. She drew on Swatantra Kumar v. Indian Express Ltd. (2013) for restraining prejudicial publicity, Naveen Jindal v. Zee Media (2015) against "," and Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami (2018) urging sensitivity in sub-judice matters.
Recent rulings like Rakesh Jagdish Kalra v. India Today Group (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5113) affirmed the for the exonerated, while Anjali Birla v. X Corp. (2024) and IE Online Media v. Nitin Bhatnagar (2025) mandated platforms remove unverified, harmful content. International echoes from Priya Varghese v. Dr. Joseph Skariah (, 2023) reinforced reputation as integral to dignity.
The court noted: publications post- stays imposed "criminality" without basis, risking "reputational harm and stigma" via digital permanence.
"The presence of the articles on the social media platform being accessible to one and all even pursuant to the quashing of all proceedings against the plaintiff, definitely has the magnitude to damage the reputation of plaintiff and his family of which compensation in money, may not be adequate."
'De-Index Now': The Binding Order and Its Ripples
The operative directions are unequivocal:
"Defendants No. 1 to 3... are restrained from publishing, re-publishing or circulating any further content in relation to the Plaintiff and his family name-concerning the case of Sterling Biotech Limited and bank fraud... directing to de-index, de-list, and de-reference the URLs and content of the said articles as detailed in the plaint... from their respective website... Defendant No. 1 and 2 [Google, Meta] to de-index... from its search engine results... comply... not exceeding 36 hours."
This interim shield lasts till suit disposal, with plaintiff complying with CPC disclosure norms. As media reports note, it underscores platform liability, potentially emboldening similar suits where exoneration clashes with online eternity. For Google and Meta, it's a call to balance speech with privacy—no prejudice to them, but profound relief for Sandesara.
"In a democracy, the media’s responsibility... is expected that the media should strive for accuracy and objectivity... avoiding sensationalism."
Future cases may test these bounds, but for now, the digital din quiets.
