Delhi HC Orders Takedown of Fake News About CJI at London Badminton Event

Kaustav Chowdhury
4 days ago
3 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

The Delhi High Court, in orders issued in June 2026, directed social media intermediaries to remove, disable, and de-index false content alleging that the Chief Justice of India, approximately 75 judges, and Union Ministers travelled to London at taxpayers' expense for a badminton tournament. Justice Tejas Karia, hearing a petition filed by the Badminton Association of India (BAI) with intervention by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, characterised the posts as part of a "systematic misinformation campaign intended to malign the reputation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and Hon'ble Judges."

What Actually Happened

The misinformation originated from photographs of a national-level Bar and Bench Badminton Tournament held at Thyagaraj Stadium, New Delhi, on November 29, 2025. These images were misrepresented on social media as evidence that the CJI and other judges had travelled to London for a badminton event on June 7, 2026, using public funds.

In fact, the 2nd International Bar and Bench Badminton Championship was held in London on June 7, 2026, but without the individuals falsely claimed to have attended. The CJI was in London on an entirely separate official visit to the UK Supreme Court. The Ministry of Law and Justice confirmed through an official statement that the claims were false, and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) verified the same.

The Court's Directions

Justice Karia issued a series of directions. Intermediaries and social media platforms were ordered to remove, disable, and de-index all false content relating to the claims within 24 hours. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) was directed to take action under the Information Technology Act. Platforms were ordered to furnish the subscriber details of the accounts responsible for creating and disseminating the false content. A compliance date of July 17, 2026 was set for the platforms to report back.

IT Act Section 69A and the Power to Block Content

Section 69A of the IT Act 2000 empowers the Central Government or any specially authorised officer to direct any intermediary to block public access to information hosted on a computer resource. The power is exercisable in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to a cognizable offence. The procedure for blocking is governed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

For the broader IT Rules framework on content moderation and takedowns: IT Rules 2026: India Mandates Three-Hour Deepfake Takedowns and AI Content Labelling.

Intermediary Due Diligence Under IT Rules 2021

Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 requires intermediaries to take reasonable efforts to ensure that users do not upload, share, or store content that is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature. This due diligence obligation, combined with the 2023 and 2026 amendments to the Rules, creates a layered obligation on platforms to act against misinformation once it is brought to their notice.

For a related analysis of intermediary safe harbour and AI content obligations: IT Intermediary Guidelines Second Amendment Rules 2026: Safe Harbour and AI Content Obligations.

Criminal Liability for Spreading False Information Under BNS Section 353

Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (replacing Section 505 IPC) punishes the making, publishing, or circulating of statements, rumours, or reports intended to cause fear or alarm among the public, or to incite any class or community to commit offences against another class or community. The BNS version adds explicit references to "false information" and dissemination "through electronic means" in sub-sections (1) and (2). Sub-sections (1) and (2) carry a punishment of up to three years or fine or both, while sub-section (3) carries up to five years and fine. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

Status of the PIB Fact Check Unit

While the PIB confirmed the falsity of the claims in this case, it is relevant to note the current legal status of the formal PIB Fact Check Unit (FCU). The amended IT Rules that empowered the PIB as the FCU were challenged in court. In September 2024, the Bombay High Court, in a tie-breaker judgment by Justice Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar, struck down the FCU provisions as unconstitutional, finding them "manifestly arbitrary" and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The FCU provisions therefore remain inoperative.

For analysis of deepfake and personality rights cases: Bombay HC Allows Preity Zinta to Sue Google and Meta Over AI Deepfakes: Personality Rights and IT Rules 2026.