The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to a married couple who are both practicing advocates, passing a John Doe order that restrains anonymous social media accounts and unknown persons from publishing, circulating, or disseminating defamatory, communally inflammatory, and sexually threatening content targeting them on X (formerly Twitter). Justice Subramonium Prasad additionally directed X Corp to pull down all impugned content within three days, a ruling that matters because it affirms that anonymous online hate campaigns with communal undertones will not find shelter behind the veil of unidentified accounts.
The two lawyers, a married couple, approached the Delhi High Court alleging a coordinated and sustained campaign by anonymous X accounts that published content they described as false, malicious, communally provocative, and laced with threats of physical and sexual violence. Their suit sought a permanent injunction, damages, and mandatory takedown directions against X Corp.
The defendants, two anonymous accounts and a string of unknown John Doe entities, had, according to the plaintiffs, deliberately weaponised their religious and political identities to attract mass public attention to the posts, amplifying reputational damage that, once done, could not be undone or compensated through monetary relief alone. The Court was called upon to decide whether the content crossed the threshold from protected speech into actionable defamation and communal incitement, and whether the lawyers' right to reputation under Article 21 outweighed the defendants' claim to free expression.
Justice Prasad had little difficulty concluding that the content in question went far beyond the bounds of legitimate expression. The Court found the posts to be not merely derogatory but deliberately engineered for viral spread, observing that the language had been crafted "in a way to garner more and more attention" from the general public. Describing the material as scandalous, vulgar, and communally inflammatory, the Court held that "no human being with dignity and self-respect can live peacefully and with head held high if such scandalous, vulgar posts are circulated against them amongst the public at large."
The Court also identified what it termed a "brewing campaign" by persons with opposing political inclinations, noting that references to the lawyers' personal lives were deliberately framed around their perceived political identity. Reiterating that reputation is an inseparable component of the right to life under Article 21, the Court granted the interim injunction, restrained all defendants from further dissemination, and directed X Corp to take down all impugned content and any identical or similar material within three days.
Case Title: XYZ Vs. X Corp and Ors
Case No.: CS(OS) 318/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Adv. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. Sarim Naved, Adv. Abhik Chimni, Adv. Kapil Madan, Adv. Omar Hoda, Adv. Jaspal Singh, Adv. Namrah Nasir, Adv. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Uday Bhatia, Adv. KaAdvan Khan, Adv. Surya Kiran Singh, Adv. Ayesha Khan, Adv. Aviral Jain, Adv. Manjira Dasgupta, Adv. Prabhav Bahuguna, Adv. Naman Maheswari, Adv. Utkarsh Trivedi, Adv. Rupal Gupta, Adv. Shambhavi Khare, Adv. Nilanjan
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :