Back
Sri Lankan Judge's Bold Bid: Karnataka HC Notices ' ' Against Online Smears
In a rare cross-border clash over digital reputation, the has issued notices to India's IT Ministry, , and two prominent Sri Lankan news outlets on a petition by Justice A.H.M.D Nawaz . The judge invokes India's " " under the Constitution, seeking to erase allegedly defamatory online content linking him to a crime he denies committing. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, hearing Justice A.H.M.D Nawaz v. & Ors. (WP 1277/2025), directed service of notices and listed the matter for preliminary hearing on .
From Colombo Courtroom to Bengaluru Bench: The Unusual Journey
Justice Nawaz, a sitting apex court judge in Sri Lanka, turned to Karnataka—where online intermediaries like Google are based—after spotting defamatory material on platforms hosted or indexed in India. Publications such as
and
are accused of hosting content falsely implicating him in criminal activity. Filed on
, the writ petition argues this violates his privacy rights, demanding not just takedown but a complete ban on URL searches to let him
"be forgotten for a crime he never committed."
Notably, the petitioner avoided Sri Lankan courts on ethical grounds: suing as a Supreme Court judge could spark bias allegations. Court records show procedural steps since filing, including adjournments for compliance, culminating in the , order amid the case's pending status.
Petitioner's Cry for Digital Erasure vs. Free Speech Defenses?
Justice Nawaz's counsel argues the content is baseless defamation, persisting online despite his innocence, infringing fundamental rights akin to the under (bolstered by ). The plea targets MeitY and Google for removal, blocking reproduction, and search bans—echoing global " " debates post-EU precedents.
Respondents, yet to file replies, represent platforms and publishers likely to counter with free speech protections under , intermediary safe harbors under , and limits on extraterritorial takedowns. No formal arguments surfaced yet, but the order flags service to all via email or counsel, setting stage for clash.
Court's Procedural Green Light: No Deep Dive, Just Directions
Justice Magadum's bench didn't rule on merits, focusing on process. The order clarifies no precedents were needed at this notice stage, emphasizing efficient service: standing counsel for government respondents, email for publishers. This interim step tests if India's courts can enforce privacy against foreign-origin content via domestic hosts.
Spotlight Quotes: The Order's Core Commands
Under "Key Observations," direct excerpts capture the procedural pivot:
", learned standing counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents No.2 and 3."
"Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to serve notice to respondents No.4 and 5 through E-mail."
"Learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve two sets of copies of the writ petition on the standing counsel."
"Re-list this matter in preliminary hearing on."
What's Next? Ripples for Judges in the Digital Age
The court ordered notices without granting interim relief, keeping content online pending hearing. Implications loom large: success could empower public figures, especially judges, to scrub web histories, balancing privacy against information access. Failure might reinforce platform immunities. As relisted soon, this could redefine "forgotten" rights for international litigants eyeing Indian tech hubs—watch for free speech pushback.
