Bombay High Court: In the present application, the plaintiff, Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd. alleged that defamatory posts were being circulated on social media portraying it as a sympathiser of Pakistan, based on its prior engagement of a UK-based influencer who had later criticised India’s Operation Sindoor. The plaintiff claimed this was done by competitors to damage its business and sought injunctive relief for removal and restraint of such content. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., while ordering an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff emphasised that mere utilisation of services of the UK-based influencer could not justify defamatory content being spread by competitors. The Court observed that the plaintiff had discontinued the influencer’s services and argued that it could not be connected to her activities, especially since the controversial posts were made after her engagement ended.
Background:
The plaintiff, a reputed jewellery brand operating in India, engaged in the manufacturing and trading of jewellery, planned to establish a new showroom in Birmingham, UK in order to expand it’s presence. As part of its marketing strategy, it engaged social media influencers to attract prospective customers. For this purpose, JAB Studios was hired to secure such influencer services. Among the principal influencers provided for the campaign was a Pakistani Instagram influencer residing in the UK, who had later publicly condemned India’s surgical strike during Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
The plaintiff claimed that the influencer’s engagement occurred well before the Pahalgam attack and without any knowledge of her political views or connections with the neighbouring country. Consequently, the plaintiff faced defamatory posts on social media platforms, where random individuals were portraying it as a sympathiser of Pakistan due to its prior association with the said influencer. It was alleged that these posts were being strategically circulated by competitors to harm the plaintiff’s business during festive times. The plaintiff submitted a list of 442 URLs containing such defamatory content and sought an injunction for their removal, along with a restraint on the publication of any further defamatory material.
Analysis and Decision:
Upon considering the submissions, the Court emphasised that mere utilisation of services of the UK-based influencer could not justify defamatory content being spread by competitors. The Court observed that the plaintiff had discontinued the influencer’s services and argued that it could not be connected to her activities, especially since the controversial posts were made after her engagement ended.
The Court directed Defendants 1 to 7 to pull down and delete all posts, materials, and stories. Further, the Court restrained them from permitting publication of any further defamatory content against the plaintiff related to the influencer arrangement. The Court thereby ordered the plaintiff to provide the URLs of such posts to the defendants (Meta Platforms Inc including digital platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp), who could raise any doubts or objections, allowing the plaintiff to seek further relief from the Court.
Additionally, the Court restrained Defendant 6 from publishing any printed material against the plaintiff concerning the influencer arrangement. The Court held that these directions would operate as an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff until the next hearing. Further, the Court directed that notices be issued to Defendants 2 and 4 to 8, making them returnable on 11-11-2025.
[Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc, Interim Application (L) No. 30690 of 2025, decided on 29-09-2025]