Back
Google Declares " Itself Has Been Forgotten" in High Court Clash Over Content Takedown
In a sharp rebuttal that underscores the limits of digital rights in India, Google LLC has told the
that the
"
itself has been forgotten"
while opposing a plea by
Judge Justice AHMD Nawaz to remove allegedly defamatory online articles. The petition, filed under the case title
, seeks the takedown of four specific articles published between
and
by Sri Lankan outlets
and
. Google's counsel,
, argued vehemently that this right is absent from India's
, raising pivotal questions on jurisdiction, constitutional remedies, and intermediary obligations. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, hearing the matter, has scheduled the next hearing for
, following submissions on
. This dispute not only tests the boundaries of cross-border defamation but also highlights tensions between reputation protection and free speech in the digital realm.
Background of the Dispute
Justice AHMD Nawaz, a sitting judge of the and former President of the , bases his grievance on articles that emerged during his judicial tenure. The targeted content includes one piece from in , two more from the same outlet in , and another from in the same year. These publications allegedly portrayed him in a defamatory light, damaging his personal reputation and the institutional dignity of the judiciary.
Despite subsequent clearance for his elevation to Sri Lanka's apex court, Nawaz contends that the perpetual online availability of these articles continues to harm his standing. The plea emphasizes that such content undermines not just his image but the broader integrity of judicial institutions. Notably, Nawaz has ties to India, having served as guest faculty at and participated in academic conferences here, providing a nexus for approaching Indian courts.
Earlier, the
issued notices to Google, MeitY,
, and
, directing responses to the allegations. The petitioner's choice of forum stems from practical and ethical considerations: as a sitting Sri Lankan judge, filing domestically could invite accusations of bias or
"
."
India, with Google's significant presence, emerges as a neutral jurisdiction for enforcing content removal.
Google's Comprehensive Opposition
Google's defense, articulated by Advocate Kulkarni, is layered and robust, attacking the plea on substantive, jurisdictional, and procedural fronts. Central to their argument is the absence of an express "
" (RTBF) in Indian law. Kulkarni recounted that while the RTBF was proposed in the
, Parliament consciously omitted it from the final DPDP Act, 2023.
"The
itself has been forgotten,"
he quipped, emphasizing legislative intent to prioritize free speech and information access over automatic erasure rights.
Further, Google contended that Justice Nawaz, as a foreign national residing abroad, cannot invoke
—which safeguards life, personal liberty, and by extension reputation—against a private entity like Google. They argued:
"Only Citizens, Foreigners Residing In India Can Invoke Art.21,"
limiting such remedies to those with territorial presence. This invokes established jurisprudence distinguishing citizens' rights from those available to "persons" under specific conditions.
Jurisdictional objections invoke the doctrine of , asserting that Sri Lanka—home to the events, parties, and publications—is the natural forum. Indian courts, Google submits, should decline in favor of more convenient venues. Procedurally, they criticized impleading MeitY merely to access High Court writ jurisdiction, insisting a civil defamation suit is the proper recourse, not a constitutional petition against a private intermediary.
These arguments align with Google's broader stance on intermediary under , and the , which shield platforms from content liability unless proactive notice-and-takedown failures occur.
Petitioner's Strong Counterarguments
Justice Nawaz's counsel mounted a spirited defense, reframing the plea as a non-monetary quest for content removal, rendering civil suits inefficient. Crucially, they asserted Article 21's applicability to all "persons," not just citizens, citing Supreme Court precedents extending reputation rights to foreigners.
"Right To Reputation Applies To Foreigners Too,"
echoed an earlier High Court remark in related proceedings.
The forum choice was justified by Google's Indian operations, making it feasible for takedown orders. Domestic Sri Lankan litigation was dismissed as untenable due to Nawaz's judicial role, risking impartiality concerns. This positions India as a pragmatic, neutral arbiter in a digital dispute transcending borders.
Court's Interim Stance and Next Steps
Justice Magadum has actively engaged, previously directing Google's reply and now listing the matter for . No interim relief has been granted, allowing the arguments to sharpen focus on evolving digital jurisprudence.
Dissecting the Key Legal Issues
This case crystallizes several fault lines in Indian cyber law. Foremost is RTBF's status post-DPDP. Unlike the EU's GDPR (Article 17), which mandates erasure under conditions, India's DPDP prioritizes data minimization and consent without RTBF, reflecting parliamentary balancing of privacy against expression ( ). Dropping RTBF from the Bill avoided overreach, as seen in global critiques of "censorship by forgetting."
Jurisdiction in cyberspace challenges traditional rules. (from ) weighs private/public interest factors; here, Google's servers and Indian users tilt toward acceptance, but foreign-centric content favors declination. Article 21's extraterritorial reach for non-residents remains contentious—Supreme Court in extended some protections, but against private actors?
Cross-border defamation invokes Section 66A's ghost (struck down) and emerging norms under Bhima Koregaon probes or Prajwala Films v Union (on proactive intermediary duties).
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
For legal professionals, outcomes could recalibrate practice. Platforms like Google may face surged foreign takedown requests, testing limits and necessitating global compliance teams. Defamation litigators must navigate writ vs. civil routes, with High Courts wary of "bypass" tactics.
Judges and public figures gain insights into reputation defense amid enduring online content—potentially spurring legislative RTBF revival or judicial gloss via Article 21. Data privacy lawyers eye DPDP notifications (rules pending), where omission of RTBF signals caution against over-expansive privacy claims.
Internationally, it underscores comity: Indian courts ordering foreign sites ( ) risks reciprocity disputes. Amid India-Sri Lanka judicial exchanges (e.g., recent training at Indian SC), this tests bilateral trust.
Practitioners should monitor for amicus briefs from MeitY or , influencing DPDP implementation.
Conclusion
The 's deliberation promises clarity on RTBF's void, foreigners' digital rights, and judicial forums in a borderless web. Whether Nawaz secures relief or Google prevails, the verdict will ripple through cyber law, affirming Parliament's DPDP vision or expanding constitutional frontiers. Legal eagles await with bated breath.
