"Kasab Energy" Posts Withheld? Delhi Court Orders Takedown Of Posts "Allegedly Advocating Violence" Against DU Professor Vineeta

Civil Judge Sahil Monga at Tis Hazari Courts, passed the order on October 16, 2026 in Vineeta v. X Corp & Ors, on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the posts prima facie "contain derogatory and abusive remarks, including statements allegedly advocating violence against the plaintiff."

Advocates Vrinda Grover, Naman Kumar and Devika Tulsiani appeared for the plaintiff. Advocates Swati Aggarwal and Saumya Pawar appeared for WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2), Abhishek K. Singh and Chitrangla Saini for LinkedIn (Defendant No. 3), and Yash Karunakaran and Bhavnish Kaur for Meta (Defendant No. 4).

The plaintiff's case, as recorded in the order, was that "various posts" published on X, Instagram, LinkedIn and WhatsApp "contain false allegations, sexually derogatory remarks and threats of physical violence against her."

She told the Court that she "apprehended harm to her reputation, dignity and personal safety due to the continued circulation of the impugned content," and placed the relevant URLs and supporting documents on record.

Before taking up the injunction plea, the Court allowed her application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to place additional URLs and documents on record, noting that these related to "the alleged defamatory content published and circulated on social media platforms, which could not be filed along with the plaint." It also took the amended memo of parties on record.

Having considered the application and the material on record, the Court found that the impugned publications, prima facie, "contain derogatory and abusive remarks, including statements allegedly advocating violence against the plaintiff."

"The continued circulation of such content may cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation and dignity," the Court observed.

It held that "a prima facie case is made out, and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of granting limited interim protection, subject to the rights of the defendants and the freedom of lawful expression."

The Court allowed the application "by way of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction" and issued six directions.

X Corp (Defendant No. 1) was directed "to remove or disable access to the impugned content available at the URLs specifically identified in the plaint and accompanying documents and to preserve the relevant electronic records."

WhatsApp LLC (Defendant No. 2) was directed "to take appropriate steps in accordance with law concerning the identified WhatsApp group in which the alleged impugned messages concerning the plaintiff have been circulated, including suspension or restriction of the group, as warranted by the material on record."

LinkedIn Corporation (Defendant No. 3) was directed "to remove or disable access to the specifically identified impugned content concerning the plaintiff available on its platform," and Meta Platforms, Inc. (Defendant No. 4) was directed to do the same for the identified content "available on Instagram at the URLs mentioned in the plaint and accompanying documents."

Defendant No. 5, whose name does not appear in the order, was "restrained from publishing, reposting or circulating the specifically identified impugned content concerning the plaintiff, including the content alleged to have been published through the X account identified in the plaint."

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were further directed to "preserve the relevant available electronic records pertaining to the identified accounts and publications, subject to applicable law."

The directions are to remain in force until the next date of hearing, subject to further orders.

The Court also provided for fresh posts of the same kind. "In the event of publication or circulation of any further content substantially similar to the impugned content, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who shall address the grievance of the plaintiff within 48 hours of receipt of such complaint," the order reads.

If the grievance is not addressed within that time, the plaintiff is "at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate directions in accordance with law."

Fresh summons are to issue to the defendants on filing of process fee within seven days. The matter will be taken up on December 14, 2026 for compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which requires a plaintiff who obtains an ex-parte injunction to serve the defendants with the order and the application papers.

"The Story Teller" claims its posts were withheld

On November 5, the X handle "The Story Teller" posted that its content had been withheld in India. "The left cabal ecosystem never lets down its foot soldiers. Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover and Naman Basoya from Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) got an order passed in the court to withhold my posts exposing Cockroach WhatsApp Group Kasab energy Gang," the handle wrote.

The handle shared X's standard notice, which states that X "has received a court order that claims the following content violates Indian law" and that "in order to comply with X's obligations under India's local laws, we have withheld this content in India; the content remains available elsewhere."

The October 16 order does not name "The Story Teller" or list the URLs concerned. It refers to Defendant No. 5 only through "the X account identified in the plaint". Whether the handle's withheld posts are among the URLs in this suit cannot be confirmed from the order.

The alleged Kasab Energy chats

Screenshots of chats said to have leaked from protest coordination groups circulated widely on social media during the recent CJP protests. In them, participants were allegedly told to adopt "full Kasab energy" ahead of planned demonstrations.

According to the screenshots, participants were told to apply tilak, wear sacred kalawa threads and drape saffron shawls while confronting law enforcement. Critics have read the instruction as an attempt to copy the tactic used by Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, of using Hindu religious markers so that the blame for violence would fall on Hindu groups.

The order is ex-parte and interim. The defendants are yet to be heard.

Case Title: Vineeta v. X Corp & Ors

Bench: Civil Judge Sahil Monga

Order Date: October 16, 2026