Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy vs Google Llc And Ors.

$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 02.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 8465/2026
KOKKANTI VENKATA MAHESWARA
REDDY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Munawwar Naseem,
Advocate with Mr. Rajendra
Prasad, Mr. Keethi Kumar,
Ms. Manisha Dubey &
Ms.Raksha Sharma,
Advocates.
versus

GOOGLE LLC AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms.
Shruttima Ehersa, Ms. Jahanvi
Agarwal, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anil Panwar, SPC with
Ms. Disha Choudhary, GP, Mr.
Nikhil Goel, Ms. Sahej
Sawhney, Advocates for R-5. .

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J ( ORAL )

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for grant of
following reliefs:
“a) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction be issued commanding Respondent Nos. 1
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8465/2026 Page 1 of 5


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:30:48

to 4 (Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, and YouTube
LLC and twitter/x) to forthwith remove, delete, de-index and
disable access to all videos, content, articles, URLs and related
digital content pertaining to the Petitioner‟s matrimonial dispute
as specifically enumerated in Annexure P-1 hereto;
b) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to permanently de-index
from Google Search results all URLs, links, web pages and
content relating to the Petitioner‟s settled matrimonial dispute;
c) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to employ hash-matching
technology and other automated tools to prevent re-uploading or
republication of the impugned content;
d) Respondent Nos. 1-4 be directed to refrain from publishing,
broadcasting, uploading, hosting, displaying, sharing or otherwise
disseminating any content relating to the Petitioner‟s settled
matrimonial matters;
e) Costs of this petition be awarded to the Petitioner;
f) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem t and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience…”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a serving Indian Police Service (IPS) officer who had a
matrimonial dispute with his wife. However, the said dispute has
since been amicably settled and the FIR, which had been registered
on the complaint of the wife, also stands quashed by the High Court
of Telangana in the year 2024 on the basis of compromise. It is,
however, submitted that the petitioner has noticed that several news
channels have published online news reports sensationalising the said
matrimonial dispute and disclosing the identity of the petitioner as an
IPS trainee, in a manner prejudicial to his reputation. He has, inter
alia, sought the removal and de-indexing of all such news articles. It
is further submitted that respondent no. 1 (Google LLC) and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8465/2026 Page 2 of 5


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:30:48

respondent no. 3 (YouTube LLC) are situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court and that the petitioner had also sent a formal
notice to them seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner seeks to enforce his right to privacy under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the impugned news
articles are available and accessible throughout the country, including
in Delhi. Therefore, according to him, this Court has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. In this regard, reliance
has also been placed on the recent decision of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in a batch of petitions, the lead matter being Laksh Vir
Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. : 2026:DHC:4891 , wherein
the Coordinate Bench held that the „right to be forgotten‟ forms a part
of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and laid down a framework enabling individuals, particularly those
who have been acquitted, discharged, or whose disputes have been
settled, to seek removal, masking or de-indexing of their names from
digitised court records and search engine results.
3. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1
submits that the petitioner is a resident of Telangana and that all the
news articles referred to in the present petition are in the Telugu
language and have been published by Telugu news channels. It is,
therefore, contended that the substantial part of the cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of
Telangana and, consequently, the petitioner ought to be relegated to
the said High Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8465/2026 Page 3 of 5


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:30:48

4. This Court has heard submissions advanced by the learned
counsels for the parties, and has perused the material placed on
record.
5. The petitioner, a serving IPS officer, has approached this Court
seeking removal, deletion and de-indexing of online news reports and
other digital content pertaining to his matrimonial dispute, which has
since been settled and the related criminal proceedings quashed, on
the ground that the continued publication of such content infringes
his right to privacy and reputation under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Concededly, respondent no. 1, Google LLC, the Resident
Grievance Officer of respondent no. 3 YouTube LLC, and the
concerned Union Ministry, i.e. the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology (MeitY), are situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner had also addressed formal
notices to Google LLC and MeitY seeking deletion and de-indexing
of the impugned links.
7. It is further pertinent to note that the news channels which had
published the articles relating to the petitioner and his matrimonial
dispute, including the Telugu news channels, have not been
impleaded as parties to the present petition. This is so because the
petitioner is not seeking any relief against the individual publishers of
the news reports. Rather, the relief sought is a consolidated one
against the respondent intermediaries and authorities, i.e. Google,
YouTube, Twitter/X and MeitY, for removal, deletion, de-indexing
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8465/2026 Page 4 of 5


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:30:48

and disabling access to all videos, content, articles, URLs and related
digital content pertaining to his matrimonial dispute.
8. It is also a matter of record that the impugned articles are not
confined to reports published in the Telugu language. Several reports
have also been published in English by national media houses,
including Times of India, The Hindu, NDTV and News18, and are
accessible and readable throughout the country, including within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Therefore, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it
possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
11. In view of the aforesaid, on petitioner taking steps, issue notice
to the respondents through all modes, including electronically. Let
the counter affidavit(s) be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder thereto,
if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
12. List on 21.08.2026.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.



DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 02, 2026/ns


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8465/2026 Page 5 of 5


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:30:48