© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
‘Sri Lankan judiciary will be ridiculed’: Judge explains rare legal move in Bengaluru against Google
Seeking a neutral jurisdiction in Bengaluru to pull down 'defamatory' content, Justice A H M Nawaz's plea faces stiff opposition from Google, which argues that Indian constitutional rights do not extend to foreign residents.
The judge is seeking a direction to pull down or block URLs containing allegedly defamatory reports about him (Image generated using AI).
Justice A H M Nawaz, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, told the Karnataka High Court Wednesday that the Sri Lankan judiciary could be “criticised or ridiculed” if he were forced to litigate in his own country to remove “defamatory” online content.
The judge filed a petition in Bengaluru, where Google India is headquartered, seeking a direction to pull down or block URLs containing allegedly defamatory reports about him.
Appearing for Justice Nawaz, advocate Prabhakaran Ramachandran argued that his client’s high judicial office creates a unique legal paradox. “Occupying the position of a judge, I cannot be a litigant in the same court where I am presiding as a senior judge,” the counsel stated.
Ramachandran argued that if a Sri Lankan court were to grant a favourable order to its own sitting Supreme Court judge, the verdict would be “put to ridicule and contempt,” with critics claiming the judiciary was simply protecting its own. He urged the court to recognise a “global fraternity of judges” and to allow them to seek remedies in neutral jurisdictions such as India when their reputations are attacked.
The petitioner maintained that the Karnataka High Court is the appropriate forum because Google does not have a registered office in Sri Lanka; its primary Indian hub is in Bengaluru. Ramachandran clarified that Justice Nawaz is not seeking monetary damages, which would require a civil suit, but a writ petition to protect his reputation and social status.
Google strongly opposed the petition, questioning its maintainability. Advocate Manu Kulkarni, appearing for the tech giant, argued that the Indian Constitution, beginning with “We, the People of India”, is territorial in scope.
“The petitioner is a Sri Lankan national residing there. There is no proximity or causal connection between the cause of action and Indian territory,” Kulkarni argued. He further noted that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, does not explicitly acknowledge the “right to be forgotten” in India.
Story continues below this ad
The Union Government, represented by Advocate Madhukar Deshpande, informed the court that a formal grievance mechanism exists under the Information Technology Rules for blocking content. He pointed out that the judge had not yet approached the Union of India through this statutory route.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed all parties to file written submissions. The court will continue hearing the matter on April 28.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog