Explained: Issues of press freedom, ‘right to be forgotten’ in challenge to Sandesara gag order

The matter touches upon the limits of press freedom and censorship. It will be heard next on April 29.

Basis of the gag order

The controversy stems from an April 4 order passed by Senior Civil Judge Richa Sharma. Sandesara had approached the court seeking an injunction against Google, Meta, and several unknown parties — legally termed as “John Doe” defendants — arguing that his family was being subjected to an unfair media trial.

Sandesara’s plea referred to a November 2025 Supreme Court order, in which the court had allowed the dropping of criminal proceedings against the Sterling Biotech promoters after they agreed to deposit Rs 5,100 crore as a full and final settlement with their lender banks. Because the Supreme Court had put an end to the investigations following this settlement, Sandesara argued that old news reports calling his family members “fugitives” and “money launderers” were now defamatory.

Judge Sharma agreed, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, which is a temporary order granted in rare and urgent situations immediately without waiting to hear the arguments of the opposing side. The court directed Google and Meta to take down, de-index and de-list the specific URLs mentioned in Sandesara’s plea, along with other links “relating the subject matter in issue” within 36 hours.

In her order, the judge observed that the right to freedom of the press “is not an absolute right and is to be exercised within permissible limits.” She noted that the published materials “prima facie labeled the plaintiffs as fugitives, launderers of funds, defrauders etc. without any concrete finding being arrived at in this regard, at the time of such publications.”

Relying on multiple court judgments on the “right to be forgotten”, which concerns the removal of defamatory content from the public domain in certain cases, the court ruled that the perpetual digital availability of such materials causes enduring harm. It concluded that after the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, the presence of such articles “definitely has the magnitude to damage the reputation of plaintiff and his family of which compensation in money, may not be adequate.”

The challenge: Press freedom and procedural problems

This order had an immediate impact on media outlets not even named in the lawsuit. Moneylife found that YouTube had blocked access to its videos regarding the Sandesara case in India, citing the April 4 order.

Moneylife’s appeal, filed and argued by lawyers from the digital rights organisation Internet Freedom Foundation, contends that Sandesara’s lawsuit is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). It said that such litigation is “predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest.”

The appeal disputes the civil judge’s reasoning, arguing that the gag order “effectively chokes any form of reporting, publication, or criticism” of the case. It contends that Moneylife’s journalism was a “fair comment on a matter of public interest, over which it has exercised due diligence.”

The appeal challenges the idea that the Supreme Court settlement amounted to an exoneration that makes past reporting false. It notes that the Supreme Court only allowed the promoters to pay the due amounts to recover public money, which “never stated that there is no admission of liability”. Therefore, reporting on the allegations as they unfolded was factually accurate and warranted.

The appeal also argues that the civil judge ignored the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bloomberg vs Zee Entertainment judgment in 2024, which cautioned judges against granting pre-trial injunctions against the media unless the content is proven to be “malicious” or “palpably false”.

Another major ground for the challenge is the statute of limitations. The appeal points out that three out of the four pieces of its journalism impugned by Sandesara were published between 2019 and 2020. Moneylife argues that the suit “is barred by limitation, and by delay and laches” — simply, an unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim — noting that if Sandesara suffered reputational damage, he should have approached the courts years ago.

The appeal challenges the lower court’s application of the “right to be forgotten”, arguing that Indian law does not recognise an absolute right to be forgotten, especially when it comes to erasing journalistic records and public history. The appeal notes that “public records serve a continuing public function and cannot be obliterated merely on individual request.”

Moneylife has also pointed out a procedural flaw in how the order was obtained. By filing a case against “John Doe” or unknown persons, Sandesara secured a takedown order without ever serving a legal notice to the actual news publishers. The appeal argues that John Doe “can ordinarily only be a person who is not readily identifiable.” Since Moneylife’s contact details are publicly available, the appeal contends that the failure to name it was an “action of gross negligence or bad faith” that “abused the process of law”.