Delhi HC Asserts Jurisdiction Over IPS Officer's Plea to De-Index Matrimonial Dispute Content from Google and YouTube

Delhi High Court holds it has territorial jurisdiction to hear an IPS officer's writ seeking removal and de-indexing of online content about his settled matrimonial dispute from Google, YouTube and Twitter/X.

The High Court of Delhi ruled on 2 July 2026 that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by Kokkanti Venkata Maheswara Reddy, a serving Indian Police Service officer, seeking the removal, deletion and de-indexing of online content relating to his matrimonial dispute. The dispute had been amicably settled, and the FIR registered against him on his wife's complaint was quashed by the High Court of Telangana in 2024 on the basis of a compromise. Despite that, multiple news channels — including national English-language outlets — continued to publish reports identifying him as an IPS trainee involved in the dispute. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting singly, issued notice to all respondents and directed counter-affidavits within three weeks.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, YouTube LLC and Twitter/X to forthwith remove, delete, de-index and disable access to all videos, articles, URLs and related digital content pertaining to his matrimonial dispute, as specifically listed in Annexure P-1 to the petition. He also sought directions to employ hash-matching technology and other automated tools to prevent re-uploading or republication of the content.

The petitioner did not implead the individual news channels that had published the reports. His case was that the relief sought was a consolidated one against the respondent intermediaries — Google, YouTube, Twitter/X — and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), not against the publishers themselves.

Google LLC contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. Its counsel argued that the petitioner is a resident of Telangana, all the news articles referred to in the petition are in the Telugu language, and they were published by Telugu news channels. On that basis, it was contended that the substantial part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Telangana, and the petitioner ought to be relegated to that court.

The Jurisdictional Question

The principal legal issue before the court was narrow: whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition at all. The petitioner's case on jurisdiction rested on two planks.

First, Google LLC, the Resident Grievance Officer of YouTube LLC and MeitY are all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner had also addressed formal notices to Google LLC and MeitY before filing the writ. Second, the impugned content was accessible throughout the country, including in Delhi.

The petitioner's counsel also placed reliance on a recent decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. : 2026:DHC:4891, where 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. That decision laid down a framework enabling individuals — particularly those 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.

How the Court Reasoned on Jurisdiction

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma accepted the petitioner's position on territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that Google LLC, the Resident Grievance Officer of YouTube LLC and MeitY are situated within its territorial jurisdiction. That fact alone gave the court a foothold in the cause of action.

The court then addressed the factual argument that the impugned articles were entirely in Telugu and published by Telugu channels. It found that this characterisation was incomplete. Several reports about the petitioner's matrimonial dispute had also been published in English by national media houses — Times of India, The Hindu, NDTV and News18 — and those reports were accessible and readable throughout the country, including within Delhi.

On that combined basis, the court held that it could not be said that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. The threshold for Article 226 jurisdiction — that some part of the cause of action must arise within the court's territory — was satisfied. The court recorded this as its opinion and proceeded to entertain the petition.

The court did not go further into the merits of the right to be forgotten claim or the underlying privacy framework at this stage. The jurisdictional ruling cleared the way for the notice stage, leaving substantive questions for a later date.

Petitioner's Privacy Claim in Brief

The substantive claim — which will be examined after replies are filed — rests on the petitioner's right to privacy and reputation under Article 21. The petitioner contends that news reports sensationalising his matrimonial dispute and identifying him as an IPS trainee continue to circulate online, despite the dispute having been settled and the criminal case quashed. He argues that the continued availability of this content causes ongoing harm to his reputation.

He invokes the right to be forgotten as recognised by the Coordinate Bench in Laksh Vir Singh Yadav, which applies specifically to persons whose cases have concluded through acquittal, discharge or settlement. The petitioner falls within the settled-dispute category, with the Telangana High Court having quashed the FIR in 2024 on the basis of compromise.

Outcome

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain W.P.(C) 8465/2026. Notice was issued to all respondents through all modes, including electronically. Counter-affidavits are to be filed within three weeks. Rejoinders, if any, are to follow within two weeks thereafter. The matter is listed for further hearing on 21 August 2026.