Karnataka HC Issues Notice To Google And MeitY Over Petition By Sri Lankan Judge Seeking Removal Of Defamatory Content

Karnataka HC Issues Notice To Google And MeitY Over Petition By Sri Lankan Judge Seeking Removal Of Defamatory Content

The Karnataka High Court issued notices to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Google India on a petition filed by Sri Lankan Supreme Court judge AHMD Nawaz seeking removal of alleged defamatory articles from Google platforms. The petitioner argued the reports remain online despite the underlying case against him being dismissed.

Vinay Madhava GowdaUpdated: Friday, March 06, 2026, 03:57 PM IST
article-image
Karnataka High Court | Karnataka High Court website

Bengaluru, March 6: The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India, Google India and others, following a petition by sitting Supreme Court Judge of Sri Lanka Justice AHMD Nawaz.

Justice Nawaz Seeks Removal of URLs

Justice Nawaz was seeking directions to remove all defamatory content still present on the Google platforms, even after a certain case was dismissed and praying for removal of URL and prevent reproduction of further materials in the same manner.

Allowing the petition, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has posted the further hearing of the case to March 16.

Petitioner Contends Defamatory Articles Continued Despite Case Being Quashed

In his petition, Justice Nawaz contended that he was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, after quashing the case where defamatory allegations were levelled against him. However, even after being elevated to the Supreme Court, the defamatory articles continued to circulate, subjecting him to media trial.

Justice Nawaz further stated that he was aggrieved by the continued presence of defamatory and misleading articles on the Google platforms. The publications were made without verification of real facts are an affront to the judicial values of virtue, especially of holders of public office in judgeship.

He further contended that despite the Sri Lankan Supreme Court dismissing the case, the news articles were again published by two media houses in Sri Lanka. They were flagrantly discriminatory, arbitrary and unlawful and had been maliciously fabricated and the false contents remain accessible online, causing harm to his reputation and integrity of the judiciary.