Congress-linked advocate Muhammad Ali Khan gets X users to delete tweets, read why the court should not have issued this order

OpIndia has removed its April 6 article about Meta India’s public policy team in accordance with a formal legal notice issued by the law firm Shergill, Hoda & Nasir on behalf of their clients and in view of an ex parte interim injunction issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on April 15, 2026 in CS(OS) 318/2026. We do so not because we doubt the veracity of our reporting, but out of respect for the judicial process and appreciation of the Court’s interim orders, which are expressly binding on third parties. However, we think that our readers should be informed about the Court’s actual orders as well as the facts in our initial article that were based on verifiable, publicly available material and are still uncontested. Muhammad Ali Khan an advocate with nearly two decades of experience before the Supreme Court of India, and his wife, plaintiff no 2, a former public policy manager at Meta India who resigned on January 20, 2026, filed the suit before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. X corp (formerly Twitter), two anonymous social media accounts using the handle @Jhunjhunuwala and @mujifren, and a John Doe fourth defendant representing unidentified individuals described in the pleadings as bots and coordinated troll accounts allegedly acting in concert with the named accounts are the defendants in the suit. The suit seeks damages for what the plaintiffs characterise as an ongoing, organised, and communally inflammatory defamation campaign against them, as well as a permanent injunction and mandatory orders for X Corp. to remove information and disclose the individuals behind the anonymous handles. On April 15, 2026, Hon. Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the application for urgent interim relief entirely through video conferencing without informing the defendants. This process is referred to in law as an ex parte hearing. After reviewing the contested tweets, the Court determined that they were prima facie vulgar, derogatory, and communally provocative. It was especially concerned about a compilation of comments, Document No. 5, that contained threats of physical and sexual violence against the Plaintiffs. Against this context, the Court issued the sweeping interim injunction, prohibiting not just the listed Defendants, but any third party, from disseminating the content in question. It is also against this context that OpIndia, which was not named in the complaint, was not heard, and was not given the opportunity to present its editorial reasoning to the Court, received a legal notice requesting the removal of our article within days of the order being passed. What court actually ordered and what it did not On its face, Hon. Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad’s order is an ex parte ad interim injunction, which is a temporary restraint granted urgently without hearing the other side. The Court’s exercise of jurisdiction is not intended to be criticised, this is a well established procedural tool. Nonetheless, it is also well established in Indian jurisprudence that an ex parte order does not constitute a verdict of guilt or a final factual determination. In order to avoid irreversible injury while awaiting a complete hearing, it is an urgent prima facie assessment. In paragraph 16, the Court itself used cautious language ‘In the prima facie opinion of this Court.’ There is legal significance to the statement. It indicates that the Court’s opinion is provisional, rather than a definitive conclusion that the tweets or publications that relied on them were in fact defamatory, it is a threshold finding sufficient to provide temporary relief. The defendants have not yet been given a hearing. Cross examination hasn’t taken place. No evidence has been put to the test. The next hearing is scheduled for July 17, 2026. It is also important to note that the defendants and anybody ‘acting on their behalf’ are prohibited from distributing defamatory material by the injunction under paragraph 21. In paragraph 24, this is expanded to include ‘any member of the public.’ This restriction’s scope, which includes anonymous third parties who were never heard nor represented, raises valid concerns regarding procedural justice. Such blanket injunctions, especially those that restrict journalistic reporting, have historically drawn criticism from higher courts, and India’s prior restraint of the press legislation is still a developing and contentious field. OpIndia is not a party to the case. We were not given a chance to present the Court with our editorial process, nor were we served or heard. The plaintiffs’ legal counsel used the injunction as justification for requesting take down in the legal notice they issued us on April 17, 2026. That requirement is taken seriously by us. However, we also respectfully point out that the issue of whether an injunction order should be applied to a media outlet that reported independently and was not a defendant in the suit is still up for debate. What records show and what remains true The original article relied heavily on facts that could be verified and on social media posts that were accessible to the public. We note that two of the key sources, the X accounts @Jhunjhunuwala_ and @mujifren, have been listed as defendants in the suit, and the Court has determined their content to be defamatory. However, some of the information in our story was supported by public records at the time of publishing and was not solely based on their accounts. We put them on record here: Muhammad Ali Khan, the first plaintiff, is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India who publicly lists himself as a member of the Indian National Congress’s Media Team on his own X page. This is his declared affiliation, not a description put forth by critics. According to the Court’s own order at paragraph 2, Plaintiff No. 2 left Meta India’s public policy team on January 20, 2026. According to the Court, she was ‘associated with Meta India’s public policy team (focusing on online women and child safety policy) until her resignation on 20.01.2026.’ In paragraph 2 of the court’s order, it is further confirmed that the two plaintiffs are married. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings before the Delhi High Court, rather than anonymous tweets, prove this fact, which was part of the context of our article regarding potential conflicts of interest inside a policy influencing capacity. Fundamentally, it is a matter of legitimate public interest to determine whether a public policy manager at a major social media platform, one with substantial influence over content moderation decisions affecting hundreds of millions of Indian users, has a potential conflict of interest due to her spouse’s active political role. It is a question that regulators, oversight authorities, and individuals in democratic democracies routinely and correctly pose to institutions holding private influence over public discourse. It is not defamatory to ask that question. Accountability journalism is what it is.  A closing note We prioritise individual safety and dignity. The plaintiffs have allegedly received threats of physical assault, which disturbs us. Harassment serves no journalistic purpose, and we vehemently denounce any behaviour that targets a person. However, a free press cannot operate if publishing information that is publicly accessible exposes a news organization to injunctions that it was unable to challenge. Today, we comply. In compliance with the law, we maintain our right to continue reporting on issues of legitimate public interest and to pursue necessary legal remedies.The story of institutional conflicts of interest, political ties, and platform governance that influence India’s information landscape is not going away. It is a story that will and should be told again and again carefully, fairly, and with complete regard for the rights of all individuals involved.