Facebook India Online Services Private Limited vs Pema Khandu and 4 Ors

This application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 01.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Yupia, District-Papumpare. The respondents are Mr. Pema Khandu, M/s Awadh TV Group, Mr. Akash Rabindra Shukla, Twitter International Company, Twitter Communications India Private Limited, Facebook-Inc, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, Youtube, LLC, Google India Pvt. Ltd., and Whatsapp LLC arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Vide order of this Court dated 19.12.2025, the names of respondents Nos. 4, 6 and 7 being Twitter, Youtube and Google have been struck off.

A Title Suit being T.S. No. 26/2022, was brought up by Mr. Pema Khandu against M/s Awadh TV Group, Mr. Akash Rabindra Shukla, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google and whatsapp. Through the title suit, the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has prayed for a decree of declaration that the articles circulated by the M/S AwadhTV Group through the official pages of Facebook, Twitter handles and websites against the plaintiff, as defamatory. A prayer has also been made for perpetual injunction restraining the M/S Awadh TV Group and their agents from directly or indirectly circulating any defamatory or derogatory contents and to remove all the circulated articles against the respondent No.1, published by the channel. A prayer for perpetual injunction has also been made against Facebook with a direction to remove and delete all the videos and defamatory posts against the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and to suspend and block the malicious articles. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has also prayed for mandatory injunction to forthwith withdraw, recall or delete and take down all the defamatory contents published against the plaintiff/respondent No.1 by the defendants and also for a compensation of Rs. 20 crores for damages caused to the reputation of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1.

It is contended that during the course of the proceeding of T.S. No. 26/2022, an application was filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Papumpare which was registered as I.A. No. 132/2023. Vide order dated 01.04.2025, this application was rejected and aggrieved by this order, the petitioners are before this court. The order is reflected hereinbelow verbatim

It is contended that the Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s deletion application in the suit, speculating that Petitioner’s presence may be necessary, even though the entity Meta platforms (Meta for short) that offers Facebook service is already a party to the suit. It is contended that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and suffers from material irregularity as the court failed to consider the undisputed evidence that the petitioner does not operate or control the Facebook service. The petitioner is incapable of taking action regarding content of service which includes Meta’s publicly accessible terms of service. The terms make up the entire agreement between the users in India and Meta. There are multiple High Courts deleting petitioner from similar suits on the basis that Facebook India does not provide or have control over the Facebook service and this fact has been previously acknowledged by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner’s certificate of incorporation, Memorandum of Association, and Articles of Association clearly evinces the type of work that Facebook India performs.

It is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider Meta’s terms of service which clearly states that, Meta provides the Facebook service. Nothing in those terms suggests that petitioner has any control or liability with respect to the content on the Facebook service. Since Meta provides Facebook service, the logical sequitur is that Meta is the relevant entity in relation to any legal liability arising out of the content on the Facebook service. It is further contended that, there is no allegation from the respondent No.1/Plaintiff that Facebook has any nexus to the contested content. It is submitted that the plaintiff/Respondent No.1’s sole basis for claiming that the petitioner/Facebook should not be deleted is Meta’s form 10K, which respondent No.1 claims does not differentiate between Meta and Facebook India. It is submitted that Facebook India is a subsidiary of Meta, which is a separate legal entity, and that nothing contained in the Form 10-K suggests that Facebook India has any responsibility for, or control over, the content available on the Facebook service. It is averred that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the well-settled principles of law that subsidiaries are distinct legal entities from their parent companies.

It is further alleged that the Trial Court has surmised that the petitioner’s presence may be necessary without effectively conceding that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner’s presence is in fact necessary and is thus a necessary party without any reasoning. It is therefore, prayed that this court may set aside the impugned erroneous order of Trial Court and allow the deletion application of the petitioner.

Per contra it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1, that a reasoned order was passed after carefully considering the submissions, and after considering the petition. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable. As this application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and considering the limited supervisory power of this Court, the disputed facts of a civil suit cannot be adjudicated. The petitioner has to show where the Civil Judge has erred and not to present facts. The petitioner has failed to show, whether learned Civil Judge has exceeded jurisdiction. No error is apparent to interfere with the justified order passed by the learned Civil Judge in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner has ingeniously resorted to revision as appeal is not maintainable but, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Heard Mr. V. Pathak and Mr. H. K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Ms A. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as Ms P. Moyong, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. S. Khaund, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not operate or control the Facebook service and is thus not authorized to access Facebook user records or take action with respect to content on the Facebook service, despite the fact that the petitioner has been incorporated to carry on business in India. As per ‘Terms of service’ (Page 149), the Facebook Inc is now Meta and the terms of use, data policy and the cookies policy to reflect the new name has been updated on 04.01.2022.These terms (Formerly known as the statement of Rights and Responsibilities), make up the entire agreement between Facebook and Meta platforms, Inc. regarding use of Meta Products. They supersede any prior agreements.

The objects as per Memorandum of Association (MOA for short) of Facebook India Online Services Private Ltd. also reflects one of the main objects of Facebook, i.e., petitioner is to carry on business in India and abroad of online support service and also provide technical support services.

It is hereby submitted that, Facebook only provides technical support and services under Meta and is unable to remove any articles published by the Awadh Group, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 & 3 without the intervention of Meta. By drawing the attention of this Court to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Delhi in the case of Bhaichung Bhutia Vs. Soumik Dutta & Ors., it is submitted that the prayer of the Facebook India Private Limited under Order No.1, Rule 10, CPC, for deletion of his name was allowed by the Delhi High Court. It was held in ‘Baichung Bhutia’ (supra) that:- “In view of the averments made in the application as well as for the reason that defendant No.5 (Facebook) does not own or operate any server and it is not responsible for hosting the contents that may appear on any website, the prayer made herein is allowed. Accordingly, the name of Defendant No.5 is deleted from the array of parties. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in “M/S Amira Pure Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goyal Trading Company & Ors.” Wherein, vide order dated 14.07.2016, it has been held that:

Relying on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Delhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this revision petition is maintainable and in the light of the decisions mentioned above, this Court may also allow the name of the petitioner to be deleted from the array of parties.

It is further contended that the Respondent No.1, has stated in his plaint at Para 37 that “Defendant Nos. 3 to 9 fall within definition of ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act for short) and hence, these defendants are under an obligation to disable access to illegal and defamatory content that is being circulated/published through its service. It is submitted that at present the petitioner is not an adversarial entity in this case, but a subsidiary of the Meta. It is submitted that the petitioner is immune from liability for third party content on the Facebook Service in accordance with Section 79 of the I.T Act.

It is contended that the Trial Court did not even consider the materials which the petitioner placed on record and failed to appreciate a cardinal tenet of Indian law, consistently recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a suit can proceed only against necessary or proper parties. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is not a proper party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524, wherein it has been held that :

The decision in the case of Kundanmal (supra) is clear that, a necessary party, must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The petitioner in this case demonstrated to the Trial Court that it was not a necessary or proper party to the suit.

I have considered the petitioner’s argument that while, seeking relief in respect of contested content on social media platforms, such as Facebook service, the respondent No.1 ought to have arrayed and sought relief against correct entity which is capable of complying with any orders that may be passed. Meta, which is the relevant data controller for the Facebook service, is already arrayed as a party to the suit. The Trial Court was apprised that if a direction in terms of the relief sought by the respondent No.1 is provided, by the Trial Court, petitioner would be incapable of complying with such a direction, since it does not operate or control the facebook service and therefore, lacks the ability to take action against any content from the Facebook service. It appears that due to its inherent incapability of complying with any directions which the Trial Court may order in the suit, its presence is not necessary either for passing of orders in the suit or for complete and final adjudication of the suit.

It is further contended that the Trial Court failed to distinguish the materials placed on record, including order from various High Courts, which categorically held that Facebook India is not relevant data controller for Facebook service. The petitioner has also relied on a decision of this court in “Facebook of India Online Services Private Limited vs. Pramod Boro” in connection with Criminal Petition No.1233/2022, wherein, vide order dated 06.12.2022, this court acknowledged Facebook India's, submission that Facebook service is provided by Meta and not Facebook and on this basis, this Court stayed proceedings in a criminal complaint qua Facebook of India which was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kokrajhar, Assam, in which summonses were issued to Facebook India through its employee in connection with alleged derogatory remarks made against the complainant on the Facebook.

Au contraire, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff laid stress in his argument that the decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Delhi (NCT) relied upon by the petitioner cannot be relied in connection with this case. The High Court of Delhi on original jurisdiction, passed the orders which is not similar to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. So stating, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Valarmathi & Ors –vs- Kumaresan reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 985 wherein it has been held in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 as follows:

Relying in the case of K. Valarmathi (supra), it is submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot also take the reins of Section 96 of the CPC. A High Court cannot delve into the merits of the case like a mini trial. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatlal G. Pittie & anr. –vs- Bright Bros.(Pvt) Ltd. reported in (1987) S SCC 558 wherein it has been observed in paragraphs nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31 as quoted hereunder:

Relying in the case of Venkatlal G. Pittie & anr.(supra), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff / respondent No.1 that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff / respondent No.1 has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Bhatia –vs- Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87 wherein it has been observed in paragraph 12 as follows:

Relying on the decision of Rajkumar Bhatia (supra), it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 that the trial court was apprehensive that in the event of any order being passed against Facebook, deletion of Facebook as a party may affect the execution of the order. Thus, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court after recording cogent reasons declined to delete Facebook from the array of parties.

However, this court is of the opinion that if intermediary to Meta, ‘Facebook’ has no control over the server nor the petitioner operates the server or plays host to the contents on the website. It is also apt to mention at this juncture that these facts are not disputed by the respondent company.

Moreover, it is also not disputed that Meta has been arrayed as a party. In T.S. 26/2022, Facebook Inc. has been arrayed as respondent No. 5. It is not disputed that Facebook Inc. has now been renamed as Meta. The Meta Office is in the United States of America and operating from USA, Meta controls all the activities of the Facebook. Thus, Facebook may not be a necessary party to the suit. The petitioner No. 6 does not own or operate any server and it is not responsible for hosting the contents that may appear on any website.

In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (Supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the reason which makes it necessary to make a person, a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled. It is argued that in this case, one must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which is not so in this case. The Court has been apprised and so was the Trial Court that Meta is the relevant data controller for Facebook service and the Trial Court has already held that Meta has already been arrayed as a party to the suit.

The decisions relied on by the petitioner in the case of Baichung Bhutia (Supra) and in the case of M/s Amira Pure Food Private Limited (Supra) is not similar to this case.

Applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC were disposed of in connection with the aforementioned cases by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC by the Learned Trial Court in connection with I.A. No. 132/2023, analogous to TS No. 26/2022.

The Supreme Court has held in K. Valarmathi (Supra), that the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the Court which it seeks to supervise, nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the CPC. Indeed, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near-total bar to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

At this juncture, the Court may not look into the objects of the M.O.A., Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. or the Articles of Association, which clearly reflects the type of work that Facebook India performs. Nevertheless, this Court can pass an order by taking into consideration the error apparent or any perversity and even prima facie evidence within the Court’s jurisdiction, without arrogating to itself the powers of the appellate Court. Apart from the Form 10-K being disputed by the respondent No. 1, it is palpably clear that META has taken over the control of Facebook service. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that this petition is not maintainable as the issue depends on the appreciation of evidence, can be safely brushed aside.

In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is held that even without entering into the merits of the case, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be considered without transgressing the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent No. 5, Facebook Inc., now renamed as Meta, is the relevant data controller for the Facebook service and has indeed been arrayed as a party to the suit. The petitioner has stressed on the Meta's publicly accessible terms of service which clearly reflects that Meta operates and hosts the Facebook service for users in India.

The decisions relied upon by both the parties, is also relevant to the instant case. I have also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to by the parties.

In the wake of the foregoing discussions and relying on the decisions cited by both the parties, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 in connection with I.A. No. 132/2023 in Title suit No. 26/2022 and remand the matter back with a direction that the petition under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC, is to be considered afresh by the Trial Court and the Court may pass any order in accordance with law.

In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.