Bombay High Court
MS. POONAM KAURversusMINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (MEITY) AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off as Withdrawn
Holding
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction does not extend to grant injunctions for defamation; the appropriate remedy is a civil suit.
Summary
Petitioner Poonam Kaur filed a writ petition alleging that Respondent No.2 had published defamatory statements about her on various social media platforms and sought a restraining order against Respondent No.2 and Respondents 3, 4 and 5. The High Court examined whether such relief could be granted under its writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for granting an injunction in defamation matters arising from social media. It directed that the petitioner should institute a civil suit where an injunction and damages can be claimed. Consequently, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the writ petition, seeking liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy. The petition was therefore disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to grant an injunction restraining defamatory statements on social media.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to award relief for defamation in a writ proceeding.
Subjects
- defamation
- social media
- writ petition
- injunction
- jurisdiction
- civil remedy
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.02.02
11:58:25
+0530
1/1 23 WP.5424.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5424 OF 2022
Poonam Kaur .. Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology (MEITY) & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Mr. Asim Sarode (through V.C.) for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Samita Thakur, for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl.G.P. a/w Ms V. R. Raje, AGP, for the
Respondent – State.
Mr. C. Keswani (through V. C.) i/by Economic Laws Practice,
for Respondent No. 3.
…
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2026
P.C:-
1. On being confronted with the reliefs in the Petition, as
the Petitioner alleges publication of certain defamatory
statements on various social media platforms at the instance
of Respondent No. 2, and the Petition seek a restrain order
against Respondent No. 2 as well as Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and
5, when we indicated to Mr. Sarode, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the said reliefs cannot be granted in exercise of
our writ jurisdiction and the remedy open to him is Cling of a
suit in which such restrain order can be sought and even
compensation can be prayed for, Mr. Sarode seek withdrawal of
the proceedings with liberty to avail such appropriate remedy
as is available to the Petitioner in law. The Writ Petition is
disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Rushikesh
Checking your session…