Delhi High Court Orders X Corp and Google to Remove Defamatory Posts Against Anjali Birla

Delhi High Court directs X Corp and Google to remove defamatory posts against IRPS officer Anjali Birla, daughter of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, and restrains unknown parties from sharing such content.

Key Points

• Delhi High Court instructs X Corp and Google to remove defamatory posts against Anjali Birla.
• Court restrains unknown parties from sharing or posting defamatory content.
• Social media posts to be removed within 24 hours.
• Court issues notices to X Corp, Google, Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and unknown parties.

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has directed X Corp and Google Inc to remove defamatory social media posts targeting Anjali Birla, an Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) officer and daughter of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. The directive was issued by Justice Navin Chawla, who also imposed a restraint on unknown parties from posting, circulating, communicating, tweeting, or retweeting the allegedly defamatory content mentioned in Anjali Birla’s defamation suit.

The High Court has mandated that the intermediaries remove the defamatory posts within 24 hours. Additionally, if Anjali Birla identifies any other similar posts, she is to inform X Corp and Google, which are then required to act promptly to remove them.

The court also issued notices to X Corp, Google, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and unknown parties involved in the case. These parties have been asked to respond within four weeks.

Anjali Birla’s legal counsel argued that the defamatory posts alleged she had cleared the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam in her first attempt due to her father’s influence. Her counsel clarified that she appeared for the UPSC Central Services Exam (CSE) and was selected in the consolidated reserve list of 2019, subsequently joining the Indian Railways as an IRPS officer.

The court’s decision underscores the importance of addressing defamatory content on social media platforms and holding intermediaries accountable for the removal of such content. The case highlights the challenges faced by individuals in protecting their reputations in the digital age, where false information can spread rapidly.