Karnataka High Court issues notice on Sri Lankan judge's plea claiming rights under Indian Constitution

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday sought Google's response to a plea filed by a sitting judge of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, Justice AHM Dilip Nawaz, seeking the takedown of defamatory articles published online in 2015 and 2020 [Justice AHMD Nawaz v. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology].

According to his petition, he chose to approach an Indian court for relief in the matter since there would be ethical conflicts if he were to move Sri Lankan courts.

“As a judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the petitioner is ethically prohibited from filing a lawsuit to address these defamatory articles, as it would conflict with the well established legal principle that one cannot be a judge in their own cause … Therefore, he has recused him from involvement in this matter, as any such action would be deemed ethically improper and inconsistent with judicial ethics," the petition said.

Besides Google, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum of High Court also issued notice to two Sri Lankan news outlets accused of posting defamatory content against Justice Nawaz. The two news outlets are Colombo Telegraph, reportedly run by exiled Sri Lankan journalists, and Lanka e-News.

Apart from seeking the deletion of defamatory online content, Justice Nawaz has also sought a complete ban on URL search results tied to such content about a crime he argues he did not commit, and to protect his 'right to be forgotten.'

While the plea was filed in January 2025, the Court issued notice in the matter only yesterday. The matter is listed for a preliminary hearing on March 16.

"Sri Manu P Kulkarni, learned standing counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents No.2 and 3 (Google). Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to serve notice to respondents No.4 and 5 (news outlets) through E-mail. Re-list this matter in preliminary hearing on 16.03.2026," the order passed on Thursday said.

In his petition, the judge has sought the takedown of four articles - one 2015 article published in the Colombo Telegraph, two others published by the outlet in 2020, and a fourth one published in 2020 by LankaeNews.

According to the plea, these articles were published while he was serving as the President of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. It says that the matter is tied to a malicious campaign carried out to tarnish his reputation after he rendered certain legal opinions in concurrence with the then Attorney General.

The Lankan judge has argued that a politically-motivated and frivolous criminal case filed in connection with this was ultimately quashed. Later, he was also cleared for elevation to the Sri Lankan Supreme Court.

Despite this, such misleading and false articles continue to circulate, thereby subjecting him to a media trial and harming not just his reputation but also the judiciary's sanctity, his plea said.

The judge added that India possesses a judiciary of unparalleled strength and integrity and that he is confident in the judicial processes that safeguard justice for all, irrespective of nationality.

He has further maintained that his plea can be heard by an Indian court since the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not just extended to Indian citizens but also foreigners.

"Protection afforded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not restricted to Indian citizens alone but extends to all individuals, including foreigners, ensuring that every person, regardless of their origin, is entitled to the right to life and personal liberty, free from unlawful deprivation. This fundamental right, enshrined in the Constitution, guarantees that no individual shall suffer undue harm or infringement of their dignity, and it is with this legal foundation that I seek redress for the grievous harm done to (the petitioner's) reputation," the plea said.

The plea was filed after a legal notice sent by Justice Nawaz to Google in 2023 failed to yield any positive results.

As per the petition, the articles sought to be taken down are not just frivolous, but also defamatory and imply that the judge committed a crime that he had not and would never commit.

The petition was filed through advocate R Prabhakaran.