Bengaluru Court Passes John Doe Order Restraining Publication Of Content Against Andhra Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan Over Land Grab Allegations
A Bengaluru Court passed a John Doe order restraining publication and broadcasting of allegedly defamatory content against Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and Actor Konidala Pawan Kalyan over allegations of land encroachment. The court, in its order dated June 11, modified its earlier interim order dated June 10 to specifically include a list of impugned content sources. The court has...
A Bengaluru Court passed a John Doe order restraining publication and broadcasting of allegedly defamatory content against Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and Actor Konidala Pawan Kalyan over allegations of land encroachment.
The court, in its order dated June 11, modified its earlier interim order dated June 10 to specifically include a list of impugned content sources. The court has hence directed the defendants to refrain from transmitting allegedly defamatory content about the politician encroaching Kodi lakebed in Ranga Reddy District and manipulating land records.
The defendants in the matter are X Corp, Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc and Ashok Kumar John Doe.
The counsel for Plaintiff said that the interim order passed on June 10 needs modification so as to include schedule A annexed with application regarding the subject content sources which consists of various URLs and other links.
"The interim injunction is sought by the Plaintiff against defendant No.1 to 3 to restrain them from publishing, displaying, broadcasting, transmitting or communicating to the public or uploading and sharing. The Articles, allegations, statements, videos concerning the Plaintiff including that of alleged encroachment of public land or water body in the impugned contents described in schedule A...
In partial modification of orders passed on I.A. No.1 filed by the Plaintiff U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC dated 10-06-2026 the defendant No.1 to 3 and all persons claiming through them including their servants, agents are hereby directed not to publish, republish, broadcast, transmit, upload or display any statement, article or allegations, videos against the Plaintiff in any manner in the impugned content sources described in the schedule A to the plaint till next date of hearing. Further the defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to block all the contents from their social media platform regarding Plaintiff which is defamatory in nature till next date of hearing…”, the court noted in the order clarifying that the erstwhile order's effect would continue, and the current order only intends to give 'effective meaning' to the earlier order.
For context, the court had in an interim injunction on June 10 directed that the defendants and all persons claiming through them their agents/servants were restrained from publishing, republishing broadcasting transmitting streaming, hosting, uploading and communicating to the public in any manner on their social media platforms which are defamatory against/about the plaintiff till next date of hearing.
The court directed the plaintiff to comply with provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3(a) CPC.
The court had said, "Office to issue ex-parte temporary injunction order only after compliance is made and process fee and copies of pleadings are furnished. Issue suit summons with notice of I.A. No.I and temporary injunction order to the defendant No.1 to 4 through court and by speed post returnable by 24.07.2026"
The court emphasised that the defendant platforms are required to block all disparaging content about the Deputy CM from their social media platforms till July 24, i.e., the next date of hearing.
The suit, alleges that various videos, social media posts, and articles published between May 29 and June 1, 2026, by multiple content creators made 'grave and highly damaging allegations' to the effect that the plaintiff illegally encroached upon a local water body–Kodi Cheruvu in Ranga Reddy, Telangana.
The plea states that the plaintiff had exhausted the grievance redressal mechanisms provided by X Corp and YouTube under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. On June 3, 2026, the Plaintiff's counsel had sent detailed complaints to both platforms, identifying the specific defamatory content and providing documentary evidence to refute the allegations, the plea further states.
The Plaintiff argued that X Corp has responded by asking for a court order, stating it would review the matter only upon receipt of a 'court order or legal process in a civil case'.
Senior Counsel Dr.Aruna Shyam M, Advocate Navod Prasannan, Rahul Mehta, Atul Menon, Mehak C and Maya B appeared for the plaintiff
Case Title: Sri Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. X Corp & Ors.
Case Number: O.S./0003986/2026