We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
In fact, the only social media platform where the right matches or outnumbers the left is X. That’s because Elon Musk has corrupted the algorithm and because Gen Z users have also declined since he took over.
> 16. This Court has gone through the tweets. In the opinion of this Court, the tweets are communally provocative, profane and vulgar in nature which affects the dignity and personal lives of the Plaintiffs. The content of the tweets are extremely derogatory and no human being with dignity and selfrespect can live peacefully and with head held high if such scandalous, vulgar posts are circulated against them amongst the public at large.
> 17. A perusal of the tweets reveals that a substantial amount of content includes statements that can be construed as communally inflammatory. References have been made to the personal lives of the Plaintiffs in the context of their political inclinations, which indicates a brewing campaign by those who have opposing political inclinations.
>18. What particularly worries this Court is a perusal of Document No. 5, which contains a compilation of comments, some of which contain threats of physical and sexual violence. All of these posts have been gathering widespread attention from the general public, which is also attributable to the language used in the impugned content, which in the prima facie opinion of this Court, have been written in a way to garner more and more attention.
her resignation on 20.01.2026. It is stated that the Plaintiffs are a married couple and experienced legal professionals of established standing…
The Plaintiffs assert that the continuous series of content circulating on social media against them is also communally provocative, attributes baseless professional misconduct, bias and unlawful conduct to the Plaintiffs– all the while making gratuitous and inflammatory references to their personal life with the intent to provoke prejudice, hatred and targeted harassment…
A perusal of the tweets reveals that a substantial amount of content includes statements that can be construed as communally inflammatory. References have been made to the personal lives of the Plaintiffs in the context of their political inclinations, which indicates a brewing campaign by those who have opposing political inclinations.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1776265732_d1393a2381a17a5c_smp_3182026.pdf/2026
OpIndia statement:
Muhammad Ali Khan, the first plaintiff, is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India who publicly lists himself as a member of the Indian National Congress’s Media Team on his own X page. This is his declared affiliation, not a description put forth by critics…
Fundamentally, it is a matter of legitimate public interest to determine whether a public policy manager at a major social media platform, one with substantial influence over content moderation decisions affecting hundreds of millions of Indian users, has a potential conflict of interest due to her spouse’s active political role. It is a question that regulators, oversight authorities, and individuals in democratic democracies routinely and correctly pose to institutions holding private influence over public discourse. It is not defamatory to ask that question. Accountability journalism is what it is…
Free press cannot operate if publishing information that is publicly accessible exposes a news organization to injunctions that it was unable to challenge. Free public discourse is the very bedrock that democracy stands on and every public person is open to scrutinity – including Khan and his wife.
https://www.opindia.com/2026/04/meta-india-compromised-pro-congress-leadership-scrutiny-facebook-anti-modi-propaganda/