Why a Sri Lankan Supreme Court judge has moved the Karnataka HC over Google

He claimed that the alleged attacks made against him in the articles are baseless and threaten to erode his global standing, which he has cultivated over many years of dedication and scholarship.

Further, the petition stated that the articles in question are “no less than a murder of reputation, an assassination of his character and is a calculated attempt to deprive him of the dignity he has rightfully earned as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and as a well-renowned academician”.

The petition also contends that the articles seek to obliterate his reputation, imputing a crime he had not, nor would ever, commit. “Such baseless allegations are an unabashed affront to personal integrity and professional standing, perpetrated without a shred of evidence or truth,” it stated.

The petition sought that the URLs linked to the defamatory posts be eradicated forthwith to halt the irreparable damage they continue to wreak upon his name, career, and reputation.

Why did he approach the Karnataka High Court?

The petition states that, as Justice Nawaz is a Supreme Court judge in Sri Lanka, he is ethically prohibited from filing a lawsuit there to address these defamatory articles, as it would conflict with the well-established legal principle that one cannot be a judge in their own cause (Nemo judex in causa sua).

As the defamation against him was perpetrated through online platforms, particularly via Google, and since Google’s Indian headquarters is in Bengaluru, he filed the petition before the Karnataka High Court.

The petition states that Justice Nawaz had sent a legal notice dated September 12, 2023, to Google and the news publishers, but they failed to remove the defamatory and malafide baseless articles, prompting him to move the high court.

The plea claims that courts have time and again aptly considered the place of the ‘server’ or the ‘headquarters’ of the entity responsible for hosting the defamatory material must be considered in determining the venue for redress.

Article 21 of the Constitution

The petition praises the Indian Judiciary by saying, “India possesses a judiciary of unparalleled strength and integrity, one that upholds the rule of law with unwavering commitment. Thus he has invoked its jurisdiction and filed the present case, confident in the judicial processes that safeguard justice for all, irrespective of nationality.”

The petition places reliance on the protection afforded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty) and states that it is not restricted to Indian citizens alone but extends to all individuals, including foreigners, ensuring that every person, regardless of their origin, is entitled to the right to life and personal liberty, free from unlawful deprivation.

“This fundamental right, enshrined in the Constitution, guarantees that no individual shall suffer undue harm or infringement of their dignity, and it is with this legal foundation that I seek redress for the grievous harm done to the reputation,” the petition reads.

Justice Nawaz has also said that the request for removal of defamatory articles, URLs, and all associated hyperlinks from every conceivable platform, including Google, is grounded in the ‘sanctity of justice’ itself.

The plea also states that the actions of Google and the publications are a blatant violation of his inherent and constitutionally protected right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This provision unequivocally enshrines an individual’s right to personal dignity and protection from harm.

The petition prays for issuing a mandamus against the Union ministry and Google to impose a complete ban on the URL searches and allow the petitioner to be forgotten for the crime he never committed.