Facebook India Not Necessary Party In Defamation Suit Over Facebook Posts, Meta Is Relevant Data Controller: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has observed that Facebook India may not be a necessary party to a suit concerning allegedly defamatory content on Facebook, as Meta controls the Facebook service and is already arrayed as a party.Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund observed, “Meta controls all the activities of the Facebook. Thus, Facebook may not be a necessary party to the suit. The petitioner No. 6 does...
The Gauhati High Court has observed that Facebook India may not be a necessary party to a suit concerning allegedly defamatory content on Facebook, as Meta controls the Facebook service and is already arrayed as a party.
Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund observed, “Meta controls all the activities of the Facebook. Thus, Facebook may not be a necessary party to the suit. The petitioner No. 6 does not own or operate any server and it is not responsible for hosting the contents that may appear on any website.”
The observation came in a petition filed by Facebook India Online Services Private Limited under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated April 1, 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia.
The Trial Court had rejected its application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of its name from the array of parties in Title Suit No. 26/2022.
The title suit had been filed by Pema Khandu against M/s Awadh TV Group, Akash Rabindra Shukla and several social-media entities. He sought a declaration that articles circulated against him through Facebook pages, Twitter handles and websites were defamatory, along with injunctions for removal of the content and ₹20 crore as compensation for damage to his reputation.
Facebook India contended that it did not operate or control the Facebook service and was not authorised to access Facebook user records or take action with respect to content on the platform.
It submitted that Meta provided the Facebook service and that the Trial Court had failed to consider the material showing the nature of work performed by Facebook India.
The respondent, however, argued that the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable and that disputed facts could not be adjudicated in supervisory jurisdiction.
Considering the matter, the High Court noted that Meta, which was the relevant data controller for the Facebook service, was already arrayed as a party to the suit. It further noted that Facebook India did not operate or control the Facebook service and therefore lacked the ability to take action against any content from the Facebook service.
The Court said, “It appears that due to its inherent incapability of complying with any directions which the Trial Court may order in the suit, its presence is not necessary either for passing of orders in the suit or for complete and final adjudication of the suit.”
The Court further recorded that Facebook India had no control over the server, did not operate the server and did not play host to the contents on the website, and that these facts were not disputed by the respondent company.
The Court observed, “Nevertheless, this Court can pass an order by taking into consideration the error apparent or any perversity and even prima facie evidence within the Court's jurisdiction, without arrogating to itself the powers of the appellate Court. Apart from the Form 10-K being disputed by the respondent No. 1, it is palpably clear that META has taken over the control of Facebook service.”
The High Court therefore held that the petition could be considered under Article 227 without entering into the merits of the case.
It noted that Facebook Inc., now renamed Meta, was the relevant data controller and that Meta's publicly accessible terms of service reflected that it operated and hosted the Facebook service for users in India.
Accordingly, the High Court deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order dated April 1, 2025 in the I.A. in the Title Suit and remanded the matter back with a direction that the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC be considered afresh by the Trial Court, which may pass any order in accordance with law.
Case Title: Facebook India Online Services Private Limited v. Pema Khandu & Ors.
Case No.: CRP/73/2025
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 155