Operation Mercy India Foundation Vs. Meta Platforms Inc

### Introduction

In the evolving landscape of digital defamation, where anonymous online actors can disseminate harmful content across borders with ease, the question of territorial jurisdiction becomes paramount. The case of Operation Mercy India Foundation and Others versus Meta Platforms Inc. and Others, decided by the Delhi High Court, delves into this complex interplay between traditional civil procedure principles and modern cyber wrongs. At its core, the judgment addresses whether a defamation suit initially filed against unknown "John Doe" defendants can be returned to another court once the identities of the alleged wrongdoers are revealed, particularly when the revealed residence coincides with a place where the alleged wrong also occurred. This ruling not only reinforces the foundational tenets of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables, but also highlights the protections afforded to plaintiffs facing anonymous harassment. By emphasizing that jurisdiction must be assessed based on circumstances at the time of filing, the court safeguards bona fide litigants from procedural manipulations that could arise from defendants' deliberate anonymity. The decision draws on precedents like Tejpal Singh Sisodia and Sameer Wankhede, refining the "Merger Rule" in the context of online defamation, and underscores the need to prevent forum shopping while ensuring access to justice. This analytical article explores the intricacies of the case, offering insights into how Indian courts are adapting procedural laws to the digital age, where reputational harm transcends physical boundaries and can cause global repercussions.

### Factual Background

The plaintiffs in this case consist of Operation Mercy India Foundation and O.M. Books Foundation, both non-profit companies registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with their registered offices in Telangana, along with their director, Joseph Gregory Dsouza, who resides in Secunderabad. These entities form part of the O.M. Group, engaged in charitable activities such as operating over 100 schools across India that provide subsidized education to underprivileged children, employing around 2,000 staff, and running 17 bookstores selling religious and educational books at affordable rates. Defendant No. 1 is Meta Platforms Inc., the owner of the social media platform Facebook, based in the United States. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are individuals, Jeypauljesudasan and Panigrahi, both residents of Telangana, who operated a Facebook page titled "OM Justice Seekers" using the email address omjusticeseekers@gmail.com. The dispute originated from posts on this page alleging serious misconduct by the plaintiffs, including benami transactions, misappropriation of donations, exorbitant fees in their institutions, and poor working conditions. The plaintiffs claimed these allegations were false, malicious, and intended to damage their reputation, goodwill, and charitable operations. They pointed to ongoing disputes with former employees in Telangana courts, including criminal complaints for financial irregularities and FEMA violations, which Defendant No. 3 allegedly exploited to publish misleading content referencing these litigations. The posts were widely viewed, shared, and commented upon in India and abroad, leading to a drastic reduction in donations—from Rs. 40.65 crore in 2018-2019 to Rs. 25.38 crore subsequently—and affecting operations, including a bookstore in Delhi. Specifically, the plaintiffs highlighted their purchase of land in Delhi in 2015 for a vocational training center, for which donations dried up due to the negative publicity, halting construction. They also received communications from foreign donors in June 2020 expressing concerns over the posts, and emails from Delhi residents in July 2020 voicing worries about the defamatory content. Asserting irreparable harm to their global reputation, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to remove the page and its content.

### Procedural Background

The suit was instituted in 2020 before the Delhi High Court as CS(OS) 262/2020, initially against Meta and an unknown "John Doe" defendant representing the anonymous operators of the Facebook page, given that their identities were masked. The plaintiffs invoked Section 19 of the CPC, claiming the wrong (defamatory publication and its consequences) occurred in Delhi, including reduced donations for the proposed vocational center, declining bookstore sales, and local access to the content. On September 15, 2020, the court granted an ex parte interim injunction against the email address associated with the page, restraining further defamatory posts. Subsequently, through discovery, the identities of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were revealed, and they were impleaded. In 2022, these defendants filed I.A. 13894/2022 under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection or return of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing all parties were based in Hyderabad (Telangana) and no genuine cause of action arose in Delhi. They contended the plaintiffs' documents—letters from donors and emails from Delhi residents—were fabricated to manufacture jurisdiction. During hearings, on March 19, 2024, the defendants confined their prayer to return under Rule 10, withdrawing the rejection plea under Rule 11. Arguments were advanced by counsel for both sides: Mr. G. Arudhra Rao for the defendants emphasized forum shopping and hardship, while Mr. Akhil Sibal for the plaintiffs stressed the demurrer principle, requiring the court to accept plaint averments as true, and that jurisdiction is fixed at filing. The matter was reserved on November 18, 2025, and pronounced on February 7, 2026.

### Reasoning and Decision of Court

The court's reasoning commenced with an affirmation that the application was confined to return under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and proceeded on that basis. It reiterated that defamation suits fall under Section 19 CPC, which allows filing where the wrong is done or where the defendant resides/carries on business, interpreting "wrong done" to include both the act and its consequences, as established in precedents like Frank Finn Management Consultants. The plaintiffs' pleadings detailed wrongs in Delhi: reduced donations halting the vocational center's construction, declining bookstore sales, and publication/access of content locally, supported by annexed letters and emails. The defendants challenged these documents as fabricated, but the court held that such veracity determinations require evidence and cannot be made at the demurrer stage under Rule 10, where plaint averments are deemed true, citing Exphar v. Eupharma Laboratories and RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma. Thus, the plaintiffs established "wrong done" in Delhi for jurisdictional purposes. The court then examined the "Merger Rule" from Tejpal Singh Sisodia, which mandates suing at the defendant's residence if it coincides with a place of wrong, to avoid options under Section 19. Acknowledging the plaintiffs' averments of global harm, including in Telangana (where plaintiffs are based and operate schools/bookstores), the court found a merger there. However, it distinguished the case due to the initial John Doe proceedings: jurisdiction is assessed at filing, when defendants' identities and residences were unknown, making Delhi a valid forum based on local wrongs. Returning the plaint post-revelation would penalize plaintiffs for defendants' anonymity, undermine bona fide suits against unknown infringers, and lead to de novo trials vacating prior orders, as per Exl Careers. The court rejected applying the Merger Rule retrospectively, noting defendants could raise jurisdiction during trial via evidence. It also affirmed Tejpal's consistency with prior cases like Frank Finn and Indian Potash, and its statutory basis in Section 19, not forum non conveniens (rendering Horlicks inapplicable). Ultimately, the court dismissed I.A. 13894/2022, allowing the suit to proceed in Delhi, with observations not prejudicing merits.

### Point of Law Settled in the Case

The judgment settles a nuanced point in procedural law concerning territorial jurisdiction in defamation suits against anonymous online defendants under Section 19 CPC. It clarifies that when a suit is validly instituted against "John Doe" entities due to unknown identities, the assessment of jurisdiction—particularly the application of the "Merger Rule" (requiring suit at the defendant's residence if it merges with a place of wrong)—must be based solely on circumstances at the time of filing, not subsequent revelations. This prevents defendants from exploiting their initial anonymity to force plaint return, ensuring plaintiffs are not disadvantaged and interim protections remain intact. The ruling reinforces the demurrer principle for Order VII Rule 10 applications, prohibiting threshold inquiries into document veracity that necessitate evidence, and distinguishes cyber defamation's global reach from traditional wrongs, while affirming that jurisdiction can still be contested at trial. By integrating precedents like Tejpal and Sameer Wankhede, it establishes that procedural fairness in digital disputes prioritizes the filing-date snapshot, balancing access to justice against forum shopping risks.

## Case Detail

- **Title**: Operation Mercy India Foundation & Ors. Vs. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.

- **Date of Order**: 07.02.2026

- **Case Number**: CS(OS) 262/2020, I.A. 13894/2022 (along with I.A. 8109/2020, I.A. 4807/2023, and I.A. 21254/2023)

- **Neutral Citation**: Not available

- **Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

### Suggested Titles

1. "Navigating Territorial Jurisdiction in Online Defamation: Insights from the Delhi High Court's Ruling in Operation Mercy India Foundation v. Meta Platforms"

2. "John Doe Defendants and the Merger Rule: A Deep Dive into Section 19 CPC in Digital Defamation Cases"

3. "Preserving Jurisdiction in Anonymous Cyber Wrongs: Analysis of the High Court Judgment on Plaint Return under CPC"

### Suggested Tags

Defamation Law, Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 19 CPC, John Doe Suits, Online Anonymity, Merger Rule, Delhi High Court, Cyber Defamation, Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Forum Shopping, Procedural Fairness

### Headnote of Article

Delhi High Court holds that in defamation suits filed against anonymous "John Doe" defendants under Section 19 CPC, territorial jurisdiction is determined based on circumstances at the time of institution, and subsequent revelation of defendants' identities does not warrant return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, even if it reveals a merger of wrong and residence; demurrer principle applies, barring evidentiary inquiries into plaint documents at threshold stage.

======

The plaintiffs, Operation Mercy India Foundation and O.M. Books Foundation (non-profit entities based in Telangana engaged in running subsidized schools and bookstores across India) along with their director Joseph Gregory Dsouza, filed a defamation suit against Meta Platforms Inc. (owner of Facebook) and two individuals (Defendants 2 and 3, residents of Telangana) who anonymously operated a Facebook page titled "OM Justice Seekers." The page posted allegedly false and malicious content accusing the plaintiffs of benami transactions, misappropriation of donations, exorbitant fees, and poor conditions in their institutions, exploiting pending disputes with former employees in Telangana. The plaintiffs claimed irreparable harm including drastic reduction in donations (from over Rs. 40 crore to Rs. 25 crore), inability to construct a vocational training center on Delhi-purchased land, declining sales at their Delhi bookstore, and receipt of concerned emails from Delhi residents, asserting the wrong occurred in Delhi under Section 19 CPC. The suit was initially filed in 2020 against Meta and a John Doe defendant due to anonymity, with an ex parte interim injunction granted on September 15, 2020. Defendants 2 and 3 were later impleaded after identity revelation. In 2022, they sought return/rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC, confining to return under Rule 10, arguing no cause of action in Delhi, all parties Hyderabad-based, and documents fabricated for forum shopping. The court, applying demurrer principle, accepted plaint averments as true at threshold, finding "wrong done" (including consequences like donation loss and local access) established in Delhi. While noting the "Merger Rule" from Tejpal (where wrong coincides with defendant's residence in Telangana, limiting suit there), it held jurisdiction fixed at filing when defendants were unknown John Doe, making Delhi valid; returning plaint post-revelation would unfairly penalize plaintiffs for defendants' anonymity, vacate interim orders, and require de novo trial. Jurisdiction could be re-agitated at trial via evidence. Thus, I.A. 13894/2022 was dismissed, allowing the suit to proceed in Delhi.

- **Law settled**: In defamation suits filed against anonymous/John Doe defendants, territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC is determined based on circumstances and plaint averments at the time of institution/filing; subsequent revelation of defendants' identities and residence (even triggering Merger Rule where wrong coincides with residence) does not warrant return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, as it would disadvantage bona fide plaintiffs and undermine interim protections (paras 27-33).

- **Law settled**: Applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC are decided on demurrer, deeming plaint averments true; veracity of annexed documents (e.g., donor letters, emails proving local harm/publication) cannot be adjudicated at threshold without evidence, precluding return on fabrication grounds (paras 17-19).

- **Law settled**: The "Merger Rule" in Tejpal (para 46) — requiring suit only at place of merger (wrong done + defendant residence) when wrong occurs in multiple jurisdictions including defendant's residence — is good law, statutorily rooted in Section 19 CPC text, not forum non conveniens, and consistent with prior Delhi HC precedents (paras 20-24, relying on Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd.).

**Case Title**: Operation Mercy India Foundation & Ors. v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors. (also cited as Operation Mercy India Foundation And ... vs Facebook Inc, And Ors)  

**Order Date**: 07 February 2026  

**Case Number**: CS(OS) 262/2020 (with connected I.As. including I.A. 13894/2022)  

**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:10222  

**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

**Name of Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

====