Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, while hearing Badminton Association of India v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 8284/2026], made important observations regarding the Central Government’s authority under the Information Technology Act, 2000, to direct social media intermediaries to address the circulation of false and misleading content on digital platforms. The matter was heard by Vacation Judge Justice Tejas Karia on a writ petition filed by the Badminton Association of India (BAI) against the Union of India and another respondent.
The petition arose after several videos and social media posts falsely claimed that the Chief Justice of India, several Supreme Court judges, and Union Ministers had participated in a badminton tournament in London. These posts suggested that the event was part of a questionable “corporate-sponsored badminton diplomacy” initiative and implied misuse of official positions. According to the petitioner, the allegations were entirely fabricated and were based on genuine photographs that had been deliberately presented out of context. The photographs, in reality, were taken during a national-level badminton tournament held in New Delhi in November 2025, where judges, lawyers, and government dignitaries had participated in ceremonial inaugural events.
The Badminton Association of India contended that the false campaign was causing serious harm not only to the reputation of constitutional authorities but also to the sport of badminton. The case, therefore, raised broader issues concerning the spread of misinformation through social media, the obligations of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, and the extent of the Central Government’s power to curb false digital content affecting public institutions.
Arguments of the Parties:
Appearing for the Badminton Association of India, Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup argued that the misinformation campaign was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by creating a false narrative around constitutional functionaries. He submitted that several videos carried sensational titles such as “The Hidden Truth About London Badminton, CJI, Law Minister Live, Uncover the Controversy” and “Why Are 75 Judges On A Vacation With Law Minister: Inside Story Live,” despite having no factual basis. According to him, these posts distorted genuine photographs and falsely linked them to an event that never took place.
Kurup submitted that the issue extended beyond reputational harm to individuals. The campaign, he argued, undermined the dignity of the judiciary by portraying judges as participating in activities that never occurred. Such misinformation had the potential to erode public confidence in the judicial system. He further argued that badminton itself had become an unfortunate victim of the false campaign, as the sport was being ridiculed and associated with baseless political controversies. The petitioner maintained that the event referred to in the online posts was merely a legitimate badminton tournament in which members of the Bar were free to participate, and there was nothing improper about it.
The petitioner also suggested that the recurring problem of fabricated online narratives called for the formulation of appropriate guidelines to ensure prompt action against misinformation circulated through digital platforms.
Supporting the petition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, informed the Court that the allegations had already been fact-checked and found to be completely false and misleading. He clarified that the photographs being circulated online depicted Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, and Union Minister Kiren Rijiju during a national-level badminton tournament organised in New Delhi in November 2025. On the inaugural day of the event, the dignitaries had participated only in a ceremonial opening match.
The Solicitor General further explained that although the Chief Justice of India had visited London for two days, the visit was purely official in nature. During that visit, he met the Chief Justice of England and Wales and attended an official function at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He categorically stated that the Chief Justice did not participate in any badminton tournament or sporting activity during the visit. He also clarified that none of the Union Ministers named in the misleading posts had travelled to London during the relevant period.
The Union Government urged the Court to permit an investigation to identify the originators of the misinformation. According to the Solicitor General, merely removing false content would not sufficiently address the problem unless those responsible for creating and spreading the fabricated claims were identified and appropriate action was initiated against them under the Information Technology Act.
Court’s Judgment:
During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and observed that the circulation of false and misleading information concerning constitutional authorities required appropriate legal intervention. The Court orally observed that the Central Government possesses adequate powers under the Information Technology Act to issue directions to social media intermediaries for dealing with such content.
The Court noted that intermediaries operating digital platforms are governed by the statutory framework of the Information Technology Act and the rules framed thereunder. Consequently, they are subject to lawful directions issued by the competent authorities. Justice Karia observed that if the Government considered it necessary, it could direct intermediaries to furnish basic information relating to the users responsible for circulating the misinformation, thereby facilitating further investigation.
While the petitioner requested the Court to consider issuing broader guidelines to tackle the recurring problem of misinformation, Justice Karia observed that the existing statutory framework already empowers the Government to issue necessary directions to intermediaries. The Court indicated that it would pass appropriate directions recognising the authority of the Union Government to proceed under the Information Technology Act.
The observations of the Court reinforce the legal position that freedom of speech on digital platforms does not extend to the deliberate dissemination of false and fabricated information capable of damaging the reputation of constitutional institutions or misleading the public. Although intermediaries enjoy certain statutory protections under the Information Technology Act, those protections are accompanied by corresponding obligations to comply with lawful governmental directions and to assist in preventing the misuse of their platforms.
The Court’s approach also reflects the growing judicial concern over the increasing misuse of social media for spreading misinformation. In recent years, Indian courts have repeatedly recognised that while digital platforms play a vital role in facilitating free expression, they must also ensure responsible conduct and cooperate with statutory authorities in curbing unlawful content. The balance between safeguarding freedom of expression and preventing deliberate falsehoods remains a key constitutional challenge in the digital age.
The matter continues before the Delhi High Court, with the Union Government expected to take appropriate action under the Information Technology Act for identifying the source of the misinformation and initiating proceedings in accordance with law. The case serves as an important reminder that fabricated online campaigns targeting constitutional authorities not only threaten individual reputations but also undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. By recognising the Government’s statutory powers to act against such misinformation, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of accountability, responsible digital communication, and the rule of law in an increasingly interconnected society.