Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne on Monday (September 29) passed an ad-interim order directing major social media platforms, including Meta Platforms Inc., to remove 442 defamatory posts portraying jewellery brand Malabar Gold and Diamonds as a “sympathiser of Pakistan.” Netizens had linked the brand’s engagement of the influencer—who had criticized India’s military action during Operation Sindoor—to anti-national sympathies. Stating that this past association could not justify ongoing defamatory attacks, the Court ordered immediate takedown of the listed posts and restrained further similar publications pending the next hearing.

The dispute arose when Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited, a reputed jewellery brand operating in India, planned to establish a new showroom in Birmingham, United Kingdom. To promote the showroom and attract prospective customers from the local community, the company engaged JAB Studios to secure services of social media influencers. One of the principal influencers engaged for the campaign was Ms. Alishba Khalid, a Pakistani national residing in the UK.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Sets Aside Kerala HC Judgment That Barred Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 as Enforceable Debts

Subsequently, Ms. Khalid made public statements criticizing India’s surgical strike during Operation Sindoor. Malabar Gold contended that its engagement of the influencer pre-dated these statements and was undertaken without knowledge of her views.

The plaintiff alleged that various individuals began posting and circulating materials on social media platforms portraying the company as a sympathiser of Pakistan due to its earlier association with the influencer. The plaintiff asserted that these posts were aimed at damaging its reputation and business during the festive season and were allegedly promoted by competitors.

A list of 442 URLs containing the allegedly defamatory posts was submitted as Exhibit-J to the plaint. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants—Meta Platforms Inc. (operating Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp) and other platform operators as well as one print media defendant—from allowing publication or circulation of further defamatory material and sought removal of the identified posts.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne recorded that “mere utilization of services of the UK-based social influencer by [the plaintiff] at some point of time cannot be a reason for spreading defamatory contents by the competitors.”

The Court noted the submission of senior counsel for the plaintiff that “the plaintiff has discontinued the services of the said influencer and cannot be connected to the activities of the influencer, especially considering that the posts by her are subsequent to her engagement by the plaintiff.”

The Court stated that “considering the submissions canvassed… a case is made out for grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff for pulling down the posts, list of which along with URL is already provided at Exhibit-J to the plaint.”

It further observed that “the defendants on whose platforms defamatory material is being published against the plaintiff deserve to be restrained from permitting publication of any further defamatory material against the plaintiff qua the influencer arrangement made by it with Ms. Alishba Khalid.”

The Court also recorded that any disputes about the nature of URLs subsequently reported by the plaintiff could be brought back before the Court for appropriate relief.

In its ad-interim order, the Court directed that “Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 shall pull down and delete all the posts/materials/stories details of which are reflected in the chart at Exhibit-J to the plaint.”

“Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 shall not permit publishing of any further defamatory material against the plaintiff qua the arrangement made by the plaintiff for engagement of Ms. Alishba Khalid as a social influencer.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court | Providing Identity, Birth and Address Proof to Police Not Disclosure of Personal Information | Aadhaar POI, POB, POA Can Be Shared Under Section 33(1) of Aadhaar Act

The Court stated that the plaintiff shall provide the defendants with details of URLs relating to further defamatory material, and “in case the defendants have any doubts… they shall inform the plaintiff… who shall be entitled to approach this Court and seek appropriate relief.”

“Defendant No. 6 from publishing any printed material against the plaintiff qua the arrangement made by it with Ms. Alishba Khalid as a social influencer.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing) with Mr. Amrut Joshi, Mr. Premlal Krishnan, Mr. Uazad Udwadia, Mr. Rehmat Lokhandwala and Mr. Abuzar Khan, instructed by M/s Pan India Legal

For the Respondents: Mr. Harit Lakhani with Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Amee Rama, Mr. Vishesh Sharma, Ms. Richa Bharti and Ms. Anannya Gogoi, instructed by M/s Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., Ms. Tanvi Rana (through video conferencing), instructed by M/s Economic Laws Practice

Case Title: Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 30690 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 30688 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne