Online Intermediaries Amenable to Jurisdiction where Content is Accessible and Registered Offices are Located

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Delhi High Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the 'right to be forgotten' when the petitioner resides outside the state and the dispute originated elsewhere.

The court held

The Court held that it possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

It also directed

The Court did not grant the final relief of deletion at this stage but issued formal notice to the Respondents to file their counter-affidavits within three weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on 21.08.2026.

01Facts

The Petitioner, a serving Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents (Google, YouTube, Twitter/X, and MeitY) to remove, delete, and de-index digital content relating to his past matrimonial dispute.

pp. 1-2

Although the dispute was amicably settled and the related FIR was quashed by the High Court of Telangana in 2024, online news articles and videos continued to sensationalize the matter, disclosing his identity in a prejudicial manner.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

Respondent No. 1 challenged the maintainability of the petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that since the Petitioner resides in Telangana and the news was primarily in Telugu, the cause of action arose outside Delhi.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Delhi High Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the 'right to be forgotten' when the petitioner resides outside the state and the dispute originated elsewhere.

pp. 3-4 / para. 3-9

03Law Applied

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, specifically the 'right to privacy' and its subset, the 'right to be forgotten'.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

The precedent Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (2026:DHC:4891), which established a framework for individuals whose legal disputes have been settled or who have been acquitted to seek de-indexing of digitised records.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

The location of the respondents and the ubiquity of digital content under the Code of Civil Procedure principles and Article 226 of the Constitution.

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the Respondents’ objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that the key Respondents—Google LLC, YouTube LLC’s Grievance Officer, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)—are all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

The Petitioner sought relief against these intermediaries and authorities rather than the individual publishers located in Telangana.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

The Court observed that the impugned content was not limited to regional languages but included English reports by national media houses (e.g., Times of India, NDTV), which are accessible and readable within Delhi.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The Court reasoned that a substantial part of the cause of action—the continued digital accessibility of the infringing content—arose within its jurisdiction.

p. 5 · ¶ 9-10