Unidentified Persons, Media Restrained From Circulating Defamatory Content Against Hyd Bizman

The Hyderabad City Civil Court restrained unidentified persons and multiple media platforms from disseminating allegedly defamatory content against a city-based businessman and ordered John Doe (Ashok Kumar) to protect his personal rights. The decision was given in a civil suit filed by MA Mokheem against multiple defendants, including Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Tracking and Protection Agency, media houses, digital intermediaries and unknown persons. The lawsuit sought protection against the continued dissemination of what the plaintiff described as false and damaging content on broadcast television and social media. According to the plaintiff, the dispute centers around 36 acres and 37 guntas of land in Ailapur village, which the plaintiff claims to have been in his possession for several decades. It was alleged that despite the Telangana High Court’s interim order on a related matter directing maintenance of status quo, the authorities continued to demolish structures on the land without prior notice or complying with due process. Damodar Mundra, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, stated that the demolition was followed by a coordinated media campaign portraying the plaintiff as a “land grabber” and habitual criminal. He argued that many television channels and online platforms carried unsubstantiated claims, including manipulated and AI-generated images that falsely depicted the plaintiff in criminal activities. He said the content was amplified through anonymous accounts and third parties, causing serious damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and social standing. The court was also briefed on material HYDRAA allegedly posted on its official social media accounts, as well as interviews on multiple news outlets linking the plaintiff to criminal conduct. After hearing the arguments, the Court granted a John Doe order prohibiting not only the named defendants but also unknown persons from publishing or sharing defamatory content against the plaintiff. It also directed the removal of existing infringing material and allowed the plaintiff to notify agents to remove such content, including future instances of similar posts.