$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 821/2026 UDAY RATRA .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh CGSC Mr. Adhiraj Singh GP Adv Mr. Aryan Dhaka Adv. Ms. Ira Singh Advs. for R-1. Mr. Rohan Ahuja and Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 21.01.2026 1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent Nos. 2 (Google India and Google LLC) to delist/remove not only all defamatory and stigmatizing content in the news reports published by NDTV, Indian Express, Times of India and IBl Times , but also all other identical or similar defamatory posts, articles, and URLs relating to the Petitioner.. b) Direct Respondent Nos. 4-6 and any other online publishers/platforms hosting such defamatory content to delete/remove all such news articles, blog posts, and publications concerning the Petitioner which stigmatize him as a "kleptomaniac", "mentally unstable" or associate him with alleged criminal activities; c) Direct Respondent No. 1 (Union of India/MeitY) to formulate effective guidelines for enforcement of the Right to be Forgotten in cases where outdated and stigmatizing content remains permanently available online;” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2026 at 13:16:42 2. The petitioner claims that respondent nos. 4 to 6 have falsely published defamatory articles describing him as ‘a kleptomaniac’ and ‘mentally unstable’ and that the same is violative of his fundamental rights. 3. The petitioner claims that the posts in question are required to be removed as the same are defamatory. 4. Unless there is adjudication regarding the aforesaid aspect, as to whether the posts are defamatory or otherwise, no subsequent directions are required to be passed. The petitioner will have to establish that the posts are defamatory. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed a civil defamation suit instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. 6. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 21, 2026/P/AMG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2026 at 13:16:42