A Delhi civil court has directed X Corp, Meta Platforms, LinkedIn Corporation and WhatsApp LLC to take action against social media posts and messages allegedly targeting Vineeta Sharma, an Associate Professor of Economics at Delhi University’s Kirori Mal College. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing the platforms to remove or restrict access to specifically identified content concerning her, as reported in Lawbeat.
The order has drawn attention after the X account “The Story Teller” stated that its posts exposing alleged “Kasab energy” WhatsApp chats linked to the recent cockroach protests had been withheld in India.
Civil Judge Sahil Monga of the Tis Hazari Courts passed the order on 16 October 2026, in Vineeta v. X Corp & Ors, on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the plaintiff’s submissions recorded in the order, “various posts” published on X, Instagram, LinkedIn and WhatsApp “contain false allegations, sexually derogatory remarks and threats of physical violence against her.”
Sharma told the court that she “apprehended harm to her reputation, dignity and personal safety due to the continued circulation of the impugned content,” and submitted the relevant URLs and supporting documents.
Before considering the injunction application, the court allowed her application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to submit additional URLs and documents relating to the alleged defamatory content, which could not be filed along with the original plaint. It also took the amended memo of parties on record.
After examining the application and the material submitted, the court observed that the identified posts prima facie “contain derogatory and abusive remarks, including statements allegedly advocating violence against the plaintiff.”
The court further observed, “The continued circulation of such content may cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and dignity.”
It held that “a prima facie case is made out, and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of granting limited interim protection, subject to the rights of the defendants and the freedom of lawful expression.”
What Did the Court Direct?
The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and issued directions to the four social media platforms.
X Corp was directed “to remove or disable access to the impugned content available at the URLs specifically identified in the plaint and accompanying documents and to preserve the relevant electronic records.”
WhatsApp LLC was directed “to take appropriate steps in accordance with law concerning the identified WhatsApp group in which the alleged impugned messages concerning the plaintiff have been circulated, including suspension or restriction of the group, as warranted by the material on record.”
LinkedIn Corporation was directed “to remove or disable access to the specifically identified impugned content concerning the plaintiff available on its platform.”
Meta Platforms, Inc. was similarly directed to remove or disable access to the identified content “available on Instagram at the URLs mentioned in the plaint and accompanying documents.”
The court also restrained Defendant No. 5, whose name is not mentioned in the order, from publishing, reposting or circulating the specifically identified content concerning Sharma, including material allegedly published through the X account identified in the plaint.
All four platforms were further directed to preserve available electronic records relating to the identified accounts and publications, subject to applicable law.
The court also addressed the possibility of similar content being circulated in the future. It stated, “In the event of publication or circulation of any further content substantially similar to the impugned content, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who shall address the grievance of the plaintiff within 48 hours of receipt of such complaint.”
If the platforms fail to address the grievance within that period, Sharma can approach the court for further directions.
The injunction will remain in force until the next hearing, subject to further orders. Fresh summons are to be issued to the defendants upon payment of process fees within seven days.
The matter has been listed for 14 December 2026, for compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which requires a plaintiff obtaining an ex-parte injunction to serve the defendants with the court order and relevant application papers.
Advocates Vrinda Grover, Naman Kumar and Devika Tulsiani appeared for Sharma. Advocates Swati Aggarwal and Saumya Pawar represented WhatsApp, Abhishek K. Singh and Chitrangla Saini appeared for LinkedIn, while Yash Karunakaran and Bhavnish Kaur represented Meta.
‘The Story Teller’ Says Their Posts Were Withheld
On 5 November 2026, the X account “The Story Teller” claimed that its posts had been withheld in India following the court proceedings.
In a post, the handle alleged, “The left cabal ecosystem never lets down its foot soldiers. Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover and Naman Basoya from Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) got an order passed in the court to withhold my posts exposing Cockroach WhatsApp Group Kasab energy Gang,”
THE LEFT CABAL ECOSYSTEM NEVER LET DOWN ITS FOOT SOLDIERS
Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover and Naman Basoya from Internet Freedom Foundation get an order passed in the court to withheld my posts exposing Cockroach WhatsApp Group KASAB ENERGY Gang!!
And where are 99.99% of RW Keyboard warriors?
Hanging on to their reach, likes, RTs and staying politically correct to save their handles!!
Else they remain busy in reporting each other to bask in the social media lime light bubble.— The Story Teller (@IamTheStory__) November 5, 2026
The account also shared a notification from X stating that the platform had received a court order alleging that the content violated Indian law.
The notification read, X “has received a court order that claims the following content violates Indian law” and that “in order to comply with X’s obligations under India’s local laws, we have withheld this content in India; the content remains available elsewhere.”
The notification also advised the account holder that it could seek legal counsel, contest the order in court, contact civil society organisations or voluntarily delete the content, among other possible steps.
The Alleged ‘Kasab Energy’ Chats
Screenshots purportedly showing conversations from WhatsApp groups involved in coordinating the recent CJP protests circulated widely on social media.
According to the screenshots, participants were allegedly instructed to adopt “full Kasab energy” ahead of planned demonstrations.
The messages reportedly instructed participants to apply tilak, wear sacred kalawa threads and drape saffron shawls while confronting law enforcement personnel.
The alleged instructions have been compared to the tactic used by Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, who wore Hindu religious markers to create the impression that the attackers belonged to Hindu groups. The screenshots have therefore drawn scrutiny over whether participants were being instructed to use similar religious markers during the protests.
Vrinda Grover’s Links With IFF and Other Political Interventions
Vrinda Grover was among the lawyers chosen to assist an allegedly “independent commission” of former judges constituted to examine the validity and impact of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
She has also represented and publicly supported several individuals and causes that have drawn political attention, including Umar Khalid. Grover has repeatedly criticised the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), arguing that the latter gives the Indian Army sweeping powers in Jammu and Kashmir and alleging human rights violations in the Valley with “absolute impunity.”
The Internet Freedom Foundation, the organisation with which Naman Basoya is associated, has also come under scrutiny over the political affiliations and activities of people linked to it.
Last month, a clip of an online chat group went viral on social media. The footage reportedly showed members discussing media strategy for what the report described as the opposition ecosystem’s campaign against the Modi government. It also featured Apar Gupta, IFF’s Founder Trustee.
IFF’s trustees include Khushboo Ranka, sister of CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka.
IFF has also opposed social media guidelines introduced by the Modi government, which sought to impose greater accountability on major technology platforms towards Indian users and law enforcement agencies and establish a clearer grievance-redressal mechanism for users.
The developments have brought renewed attention to the alleged WhatsApp coordination behind the CJP protests, the subsequent withholding of social media posts, and the court proceedings initiated by the DU professor over content targeting her.
The court’s October 16 order remains an interim injunction, and the defendants are yet to be heard.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
