Delhi High Court refuses to return plaint filed against anonymous Facebook page operators, suit to proceed

A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard an application by defendant nos. 2 and 3 seeking rejection and return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 (and Rule 11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The challenge arose in a defamation suit filed by charitable organisations against operators of a Facebook page titled “OM Justice Seekers” and Meta Platforms Inc., wherein the plaintiffs alleged widespread defamatory publications causing loss of donations and reputational injury in Delhi.

The Court dismissed I.A.13894/2022 and held that the plaint was validly instituted in Delhi when the defendants’ identities were unknown and the suit had proceeded initially as a John Doe proceeding. The judge reiterated that objections to territorial jurisdiction on a demurrer must proceed on the basis that the facts pleaded in the plaint were true, and that jurisdiction was to be assessed as on the date of filing. The Court emphasised the unfairness of permitting defendants who published allegedly defamatory material anonymously to later “come out of the shadows” and insist that the plaint be returned. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, accepting the proposition seeking the return of plaint in cases where the defendants' subsequently reveal their identity would also negatively impact genuine bona fide litigants who, owing to the harassment and loss caused by the words of anonymous individuals, seek protection from Courts by instituting a suit against unknown defendants. Importantly, the Court also finds it impermissible and unacceptable, as a matter of law, for the defendants, who themselves, posted the allegedly defamatory content, under the garb of anonymity, to come out of the shadows, and insist upon the plaint to be returned de novo institution at Telangana, where they reside. The plaintiffs, must not suffer, owing to the defendants' acts of hide and seek.” The bench ordered that the suit proceed in accordance with law and recorded: “I.A. 13894/2022 is, hereby dismissed.”

Background The plaintiffs — Operation Mercy India Foundation and O.M. Books Foundation (registered under Section 25, Companies Act, 1956) and their director — had sued Meta and two individuals who ran the Facebook page “OM Justice Seekers.” The plaint alleged posts accusing the plaintiffs of benami transactions, misappropriation of donations and other misconduct, which were said to have been widely viewed and shared, causing a fall in donations and reduced sales at a Delhi bookstore. The plaintiffs produced letters from foreign donors and emails from members of the public to show loss and publication in Delhi; they originally pursued immediate relief against an unknown account (omjusticeseekers@gmail.com), and later identified defendant nos. 2 and 3.

Defendant counsel argued that no genuine cause of action arose in Delhi, that the plaintiffs had forum-shopped and had fabricated letters and emails to manufacture jurisdiction, and that the plaint should be returned to Telangana where the defendants resided. Plaintiffs’ counsel relied on settled law that a demurrer requires courts to accept plaint averments as true and that jurisdiction must be assessed on the date of institution. The Court applied Section 19 CPC (suits for compensation for wrongs to the person or movables), considered precedents including Tejpal and the later Sameer Wankhede decision which analysed the “Merger Rule,” and reiterated the principle from Exphar that jurisdictional objections on demurrer proceed on pleadings taken as correct.

The Court found that at the time of filing the suit the defendants’ identities were unknown, that the plaintiffs had pleaded loss and publication in Delhi (including a vocational training centre project and Delhi bookstore sales), and that the suit was therefore properly instituted at the place of wrong. While observing that the Merger Rule could, in principle, apply where wrong also occurred where a defendant resided, the Court held that returning a plaint validly instituted when the defendant was anonymous would be unjust and would negate interim relief already granted; it therefore dismissed the application to return the plaint. The order noted that observations were not conclusive on issues that might be framed at trial and that defendants remained free to raise jurisdictional objections on evidence at an appropriate stage. The suit was directed to proceed and listed before the Joint Registrar.

Case Details: Case No.: CS(OS) 262/2020, I.A. 8109/2020, I.A. 4807/2023 and I.A. 21254/2023 Case Title: Operation Mercy India Foundation & Ors. v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Gaurav Nair, Ms. Vara Gaur, Ms. Veera Mathai, Ms. Bhairavi S. N., & Ms. Jahnavi, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Akhil Shandilya, & Mr. Debditya Saha, Advocates for D-1; Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Mr. Rohan A. Nail and Mr. Kaustub Narendran, Advocates for D-2 and D-3.