Google questions maintainability of Sri Lankan judge’s plea seeking removal of defamatory URLs
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court is hearing a contentious petition filed by Sri Lankan Supreme Court judge A.H.M. Dilip Nawaz, who has sought removal of allegedly defamatory online content. However, Google has strongly opposed the plea, raising questions over its legal validity and jurisdiction.
During the hearing before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, Google’s legal team argued that the petition is not maintainable under Indian law. They maintained that Nawaz, as a foreign national, cannot invoke constitutional protections in India in the same manner as Indian citizens. The company further stressed that the “right to be forgotten” does not form part of India’s statutory legal framework, despite earlier discussions during legislative drafting.
Google’s counsel also criticised the petitioner’s approach, stating that Nawaz had bypassed the civil court route and directly approached the High Court by impleading the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. According to the company, this amounted to an attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting alternative remedies.
In response, Nawaz’s counsel clarified that the petition is limited to removal of defamatory content and does not seek any monetary compensation. Hence, there was no necessity to approach a civil court. The counsel argued that Article 21 rights extend to all individuals, including foreigners, and can be invoked in appropriate circumstances.
The petitioner’s side also emphasised that Google’s operational presence in India provides jurisdictional grounds for seeking relief. Additionally, Nawaz’s prior academic engagements in India were cited to demonstrate a tangible connection with the country.
Meanwhile, the Union government informed the court that a structured complaint mechanism exists under the Information Technology Act for such grievances. However, it noted that the petitioner had not utilised these statutory avenues before filing the writ petition.
Taking note of the arguments from all parties, the High Court directed them to submit detailed written statements. The case has been adjourned, and the court is expected to further examine key questions surrounding jurisdiction, applicability of fundamental rights to foreign nationals, and the evolving debate on digital privacy and the right to be forgotten in India.
