of the suit videos and involving consideration. It is also submitted that since the plaintiff had consented to the filming of the scenes in question, it would be necessary to see whether the defendants were under any obligation to prevent its further publication. Learned counsel also submitted that there were several judgments dealing with similar issues, where interim relief was not granted. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants No.69 and 70 has further opposed the grant of interim relief on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable on the basis of the right to be forgotten. She has also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Karthick Theodre v. Registrar General, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2755 declaring that there was no such right to be forgotten, since there was no statutory law in this regard. The learned counsel has also relied on Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat, 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 2493 and Anchit Chawla v. Google India and Ors. [Order dated 21st December, 2018 in WP(C) 13921/2018] to submit that the right to seek disablement of search results in the manner sought by the plaintiff, has been rejected by the courts. Learned counsel has submitted that the judgment in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it related to alleged defamation on account of alleged fake “#MeToo” claims and in any case, the case was ultimately settled. In the case of Subhranshu Rout (supra), the court had recognized that currently there was no right to be forgotten in this country and had directed the petitioner in that case to approach the publishing platforms to take down the objectionable rape videos. Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 392/2021 Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:24.08.2021 22:42:46 Page 5 of 9