ORDER (ORAL)
% 30.09.2026
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in these appeals.
2. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi's submission is that the direction for removing of URLs and filing of an affidavit in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge has been complied with. However, he has
2
drawn our attention to the following directive contained at the conclusion of paragraph 244 of the impugned judgement:
"In the circumstances, the concened respondents/ search engine operators/ legal data base platforms are directed to de-index, and disable, across all platforms and domains, name-based search functionality in respect of the judgments/orders/news articles complained of in the petition."
3. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi submits that, as the appellant operates the Facebook platform, it is not possible for his client to perform the acts mentioned in the afore-extracted paragraph 244 and that, therefore, this directive should not be made applicable to his client.
4. Learned Counsels for all the respondents are present. They have no objection to the prayer of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi that the direction contained in the afore-extracted part of paragraph 244 read with paragraph 265 of the impugned judgement be not made applicable to the appellant, Meta Platform, Inc.
5. Accordingly, with the aforesaid clarification, these appeals stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/vs
3