The Delhi High Court has excluded two posts on X (formerly Twitter) from the scope of an ex parte injunction obtained by actor Vivek Anand Oberoi in his personality rights suit, after observing that the actor failed to oppose X Corp.’s application despite repeated opportunities and appeared to have disengaged from the proceedings after obtaining interim protection.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing an application filed by X Corp. seeking deletion of two URLs from the ambit of the Court’s interim order dated February 5, 2026. X Corp. contended that the impugned posts did not concern Oberoi’s personality rights and instead constituted innocuous expressions of free speech on its platform.
The Court noted that despite being granted time on two occasions to respond to the application, the plaintiff failed to file any reply. It also recorded that Oberoi’s counsel had informed the Court that they were no longer receiving instructions from their client and, after communicating the Court’s earlier order to him by email and speed post without any response, sought discharge from the case. Making a significant observation on the conduct of the plaintiff, the Court said:
“
“A perusal of the record appears to show that having received a favourable order from this court on 05.02.2026, which order protects the plaintiff’s ‘personality rights’, the plaintiff is thereafter evading further participation in the present proceedings, especially in relation to what has been brought forth by defendant No. 21 by way of the present application.”
Accordingly, the Court discharged Oberoi’s counsel from the matter and, treating the absence of a reply as a lack of opposition, allowed X Corp.’s application. It held that the two URLs had “no relevance to the plaintiff’s personality rights” and directed that they be excluded from the operation of the interim injunction granted on February 5, 2026.
Also Read: Peace, Mediation and Rule of Law are Global Necessities: Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal
During the hearing of the pending injunction application, several defendants also alleged that the plaintiff had “grossly misused and abused the process of this court” by obtaining an injunction covering URLs that had no connection with his personality rights. They argued that the blocked links merely contained regular news reportage relating to alleged wrongdoing involving a company closely associated with the actor and sought an expedited hearing. Finding the request justified, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on August 17, 2026.
Since Oberoi was no longer represented by counsel, the Court directed that a copy of its order be served upon him through the Principal Judge & Sessions Judge, Mumbai, as well as the local SHO. To ensure that the plaintiff’s perspective remained represented, it also appointed Advocate Rohan J. Alva as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the proceedings.
