बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय ने एक्स कॉर्प (X Corp) को सीरम इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ इंडिया और अदार पूनावाला के खिलाफ बनाए गए मानहानिकारक (defamatory) वीडियो को हटाने का निर्देश दिया तथा अदालती आदेश की अवहेलना पर योहान टेंगरा को कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया।
MUMBAI — In a major ruling defining the obligations of social media intermediaries and the enforcement of civil court orders, the Bombay High Court has directed X Corp (formerly Twitter) to immediately remove, delete, or disable access to a defamatory video uploaded against vaccine manufacturer Serum Institute of India (SII) and its Chief Executive Officer, Adar Poonawalla.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gauri Godse, presiding over the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court, delivered the ruling in an interim application filed under a ₹100-crore civil defamation suit (Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Yohan Tengra & Ors.).
Alongside the mandatory injunction against X Corp, the High Court issued show-cause notices under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against defendant Yohan Tengra and three associates for deliberate disobedience and breach of earlier court orders.
Background of the Defamation Dispute
The litigation traces back to 2022, when social media influencer Yohan Tengra and his associates posted content alleging severe improprieties and adverse safety implications surrounding products manufactured by Serum Institute of India. Seeking to protect their institutional goodwill and commercial standing, SII and CEO Adar Poonawalla instituted a ₹100-crore defamation suit against Tengra and several co-defendants.
On June 5, 2023, the Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Tengra and associated individuals from publishing, circulating, or disseminating defamatory videos and statements targeting the plaintiffs.
However, on the very evening the injunction was granted, Tengra uploaded a fresh video across social media channels explicitly refusing to comply with the judicial order and repeating allegations against the plaintiffs.
While platforms such as Google LLC (YouTube) complied with takedown notices issued by the plaintiffs following the court’s directions, X Corp declined to act on informal requests, taking the stance that the injunction order had not specifically named the platform or identified the exact new URL. This prompted SII to move the High Court seeking mandatory relief against the platform and contempt proceedings against the content creators.
Key Findings & Legal Principles
- Scope of Intermediary Obligations Under Section 79 of the IT Act
In evaluating the duties of social media platforms, Justice Gauri Godse analyzed Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alongside the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Court clarified that Section 79 does not elevate digital intermediaries into "super-censors" or private adjudicators tasked with evaluating the lawfulness of content on their own initiative. Instead, "actual knowledge" under Indian legal frameworks requires a clear judicial determination declaring specific, identifiable content as unlawful.
Once a competent court determines content to be unlawful or in defiance of an injunction, hosting the material after receiving formal notice transforms a platform's discretionary content moderation into a mandatory legal obligation. Consequently, the High Court held that issuing a specific interlocutory mandatory injunction against X Corp was necessary to restore the status quo and compel the undoing of an illegal act. - Rejection of Blanket Pre-Censorship
While the High Court provided direct relief by targeting the non-compliant video, it firmly declined sweeping requests from the plaintiffs seeking blanket directions to pre-screen future uploads or suspend user accounts entirely. The bench reiterated that Indian courts consistently protect constitutional free speech boundaries by refusing to force intermediaries to deploy pre-moderation algorithms or act as proactive censors. - Notice of Contempt Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC
Addressing the calculated defiance exhibited by Tengra and his associates, the Court issued formal show-cause notices asking why action for contempt and disobedience should not be initiated against them under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
Judicial Warning Against Baseless Remarks Facing the Bench
During the course of the proceedings, the Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the primary defendants and their legal counsel for making repeated, uncalled-for remarks against judicial officers and opposing litigants.
Observing the necessity of maintaining decorum in judicial proceedings, Justice Gauri Godse remarked:
"It is unfortunate that sometimes the parties and their advocates, instead of following the procedure known to law, engage in making bald, baseless and derogatory remarks against other parties and the judges. Such conduct may result in ignoring the main cause and, in a given case, may defeat a genuine cause. Hence, such conduct needs to be deprecated."
Proceedings and Next Hearing
The High Court has made the show-cause notices returnable on October 27, 2026, when the court will further review compliance with the takedown directives and consider response submissions regarding the alleged contempt.
- For the Plaintiffs (Serum Institute & Adar Poonawalla): Advocates Karl Tamboly, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, and Chandragupta Patil (instructed by Parinam Law Associates).
- For Defendant No. 1 (Yohan Tengra): Advocates Nilesh Ojha, Shivam Gupta, Sumer Singh, and Bhagawan Kasture.
- For Defendant No. 6 (Google LLC): Advocate Minhas Joshi.
- For Defendant No. 7 (X Corp): Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Nupur Jalan, Sanchli Sethi, Delzeen Dastoor, Parth Munde, and Vedchetan Patil.
Description: The Bombay High Court has directed X Corp (formerly Twitter) to remove a defamatory video uploaded against the Serum Institute of India (SII) and its CEO, Adar Poonawalla. Presiding over a ₹100-crore civil suit, Justice Gauri Godse held that the video directly breached a June 2023 injunction restraining influencer Yohan Tengra and associates from circulating defamatory material.
The Court issued show-cause notices under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC against Tengra for contempt while clarifying that Section 79 of the IT Act does not turn intermediaries into proactive censors; mandatory takedowns require specific court orders on identifiable content. Justice Godse also strongly condemned baseless remarks made against judges during the hearing. The next listing is October 27, 2026.