OpIndia has removed its April 6 article about Meta India's public policy team. The tweets that the article highlighted, rightly so, were removed in accordance with an ex-parte court order, following a case filed by the law firm Shergill, Hoda & Nasir on behalf of their clients - a Congress-linked lawyer Muhammad Ali Khan and his wife, a former META employee, Prianka Rao-Khan.
An interim injunction was 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 a Congress-linked 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 (Prianka Rao-Khan) 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 Congress-linked lawyer 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".
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.
For context, while we legally cannot reproduce the exact content of the tweets in question, the jist of the broader conversation on X was that META was biased against BJP supporters, especially those who post content about Hindu rights. It was alleged on X by many that it was owing to one of the plaintiffs, Prianka Rao-Khan, and her Congress-linked husband, Muhammad Ali Khan. The context is confirmed by Khan's tweet which is still published on X (formerly Twitter). It is unclear why Khan believed that the contents of the posts on X (now removed) were defamatory.
The conversation itself could potentially be argued to be accusatory, which could have been defended in court, if at all, if a hearing was granted. Interstingly, Congress itself has accused Meta to be biased earlier and therefore, it is beyond the realm of reasonability that a Congress-linked lawyer would find it not only "defamatory", but also "communally sensitive" for such an allegation to be made.
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 the allegedly 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 - including the tweet of Congress-linked lawyer Muhammad Ali Khan. 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 explicitly required for those posts to be deleted. Since those tweets have been deleted, OpIndia was bound by the court order to remove the content based on those tweets as well. 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.
Unexplainable victim-card by Muhammad Ali Khan
The court, in its wisdown, deemed it appropriate to pass an ex-parte injunction, ordering for the posts to be taken down while the case is being heard. However, what is far more problematic here is the claims made by Muhammad Ali Khan, and eventually, the claims accepted by the court.
The conversation on X revolved around how a Congress-linked lawyer and his wife were potentially ensuring that META was biased against those ideologically opposed to them. These are not different from the allegations that Congress itself has made in the past. It is, therefore, inexplicable how the same allegations have been deemed "communal" when made against Muhammad Ali Khan and is merely a suspicion when made by the party that Khan is affiliated with.
It is therefore clearly misuse of his own religious identity by Khan to ensure that his wife, a former META employee, and him, her Congress-linked husband, cannot be questioned by the public at large.
Essentially, the use of religious identity to subvert the religious process by victim-playing is not new, but as far as public criticism is concerned, the court has ratified a dangerous template which can now be used by other bad actors.
We would not be surprised if other, unrelated posts on X by related handles were used to allege religious bias by Khan and play victim to convince the court to pass this extremely problematic order in his favour.
A closing note
Free press cannot operate if publishing information that is publicly accessible exposes a news organization to injunctions that it was unable to challenge. Free public discourse is the very bedrock that democracy stands on and every public person is open to scrutinity - including Khan and his wife. 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.