Delhi High Court Bars TechWiser, TechBar From AI+ Smartphone Reviews

A brand that markets data sovereignty just won a court order silencing the YouTubers who tested its data practices.

On April 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court restrained TechWiser and TechBar, with a combined 8.24 million subscribers, from publishing disparaging content about AI+ Smartphones and founder Madhav Sheth. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte order without hearing either channel. The next hearing is October 5, 2026.

The order also includes a John Doe clause that extends the restraint to unnamed future critics. It is the second ex-parte gag against tech YouTubers inside two weeks, after Motorola’s Bengaluru injunction in April naming 17 channels.

The Court Order Stretches Beyond Two Channels

Justice Gedela’s ex-parte order does three things at once. It blocks the named channels, sweeps in unnamed future critics, and names YouTube itself as a defendant.

• TechWiser and TechBar are restrained from publishing fresh disparaging content about AI+ Smartphones or Madhav Sheth.
• The Ashok Kumar clause extends that restraint to any other person posting similar criticism in future.
• YouTube is added as a defendant alongside the channels, which has independent consequences for safe harbour.

The numbers explain why this has the wider Indian creator economy paying attention.

• 2.52 million subscribers on TechWiser, founded by Mrinal Saha with Pratik Rai as on-screen host.
• 5.72 million subscribers on TechBar, run by Sanchit Shokeen.
• 2.59 lakh views on TechWiser’s “This Indian Phone Is A Marketing Disaster!” at filing.
• 3.32 lakh views on TechBar’s “FAKE Indian Company Needs to STOP” at filing.
• Zero hearings held with either channel before the restraint took effect.

Inside The Reviews That Triggered The Suit

The Delhi High Court reviewed transcripts of the two videos, not the phones themselves. Justice Gedela found the reviewers had not produced any formal technical examination by a credible agency, while the channels argued they had tested what they could on retail units. TechWiser ran software checks on a Pulse 2. TechBar laid out brand and spec comparisons across the AI+ lineup.

TechWiser Used ADB To Inspect The Pulse 2

Pratik Rai connected an AI+ Pulse 2 to a laptop and ran Android Debug Bridge commands. ADB lets a developer see processes a normal user can’t, including pre-installed software hidden from the app drawer. The video showed two apps from Shanghai-based ProCom Technologies, whose terms collect user name, profile picture, and phone number. AI+ had previously claimed to have removed those apps after channel Gyantherapy flagged them.

Rai also tested NxtPrivacy, the dashboard AI+ markets as showing which apps touch your data. Maps and Gboard accessed location and microphone during testing yet didn’t appear on the dashboard. The video then read aloud from AI+’s own privacy policy, which reserves the right to share personal information with credit bureaus and lending partners.

TechBar Compared Specs With Chinese Models

Sanchit Shokeen’s video took a different route. TechBar alleged the AI+ Nova Flip ships with the same battery, processor, and camera specs as China’s Nubia Flip 2. The video laid spec sheets side by side and asked viewers to draw their own conclusion about a “Made in India” claim built on identical components.

The second prong of the TechBar critique focused on AI+ wearables. Shokeen alleged the line is identical to products from AI Power, a Chinese accessory brand, and showed a logo overlay that put the two marks within near-perfect visual match. Both findings are testable from public spec sheets and product photography.

The San Nutrition Test, Applied To Opposite Effect

The court reasoned through the disparagement test from Dabur India vs Colortek Meghalaya, which asks whether a statement is untrue, malicious, and financially damaging. At the interim stage that assessment is prima facie, a first-look check rather than a trial verdict. Justice Gedela found that the conclusions in both videos lacked formal technical examination by a credible agency, and so bordered on disparagement.

The order itself cites the Delhi High Court’s San Nutrition vs Arpit Mangal judgment from April 2025. In that earlier case, Justice Amit Bansal refused an injunction against influencers who criticised a protein supplement, finding their lab reports backed up the claim and that truth and fair comment were not clearly untenable. Justice Bansal wrote: “It cannot be said that the contents of the impugned videos are false or misleading or have been made in a malicious manner with an objective to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff.”

TechWiser’s video included hands-on ADB testing and direct quotation from AI+’s own privacy policy. TechBar laid out spec sheets side by side. Whether ADB output and a published privacy policy clear the San Nutrition bar is the question the court will face on October 5.

Why The John Doe Clause Has Lawyers Worried

The Ashok Kumar mechanism, India’s name for John Doe orders, was originally built for piracy cases involving genuinely unidentifiable infringers. Its migration into defamation suits is newer, and lawyers tracking the trend say it shifts who carries the legal risk.

They structurally incentivise over-removal of online criticism, with the user whose speech is taken down having the least effective remedy of any party in the system.

That assessment came from Apar Gupta, founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, in remarks to MediaNama on the parallel Motorola injunction. The pattern Gupta described plays out in the AI+ order. Future creators are restrained before they have spoken, and have to first identify themselves as defendants to fight back.

The chilling effect is not theoretical. After the first reporting on Motorola’s Bengaluru civil suit naming 17 channels and over 360 URLs, several smaller reviewers told the digital rights community they had quietly delisted older Motorola coverage rather than risk a 2 a.m. court order in a city they couldn’t easily defend in.

For AI+, the John Doe element matters most because the company sells in the under 10,000 rupee segment, where word-of-mouth on YouTube drives almost every purchase. A blanket order silences the next ten reviewers as effectively as it silences the first two.

AI+ Built A Brand On Data Sovereignty Claims

NxtQuantum Shift Technologies launched the AI+ brand on July 8, 2025, with phones priced under 8,000 rupees. Madhav Sheth co-founded Realme India in 2018 and left in June 2023 before launching AI+. The line markets a custom NxtQuantum OS layered on Android, manufacturing at United Telelinks’ Noida facility, and data storage on MeitY-approved Google Cloud infrastructure inside India. The marketing pitch and the criticism collide on a small number of testable points.

NxtQuantum’s positioning is detailed on its official launch and product update announcements page. The company told MediaNama: “There is a clear distinction between fair criticism and deliberate defamation. The content lacked any credible technical basis or independent verification. We do not seek to silence legitimate reviewers or suppress honest feedback.”

Safe Harbour Cracks Before A Final Verdict

The suit names YouTube as a defendant alongside the channels, which is the move that draws platform liability lawyers in. Under the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Section 79 of the IT Act shields intermediaries from user-content liability until they receive a court order or government notification.

Naming YouTube at the start of a private defamation suit collapses that protection at the interim stage. The platform now sits inside a binding court order before any final ruling on whether the videos actually disparaged anyone. Gupta has called this a template that consumer brands can copy as a content moderation tool.

The timing makes that template more powerful. MeitY’s draft IT Intermediary Rules Second Amendment 2026 propose tying compliance with government advisories directly to Section 79 protection, a shift the Internet Freedom Foundation’s first read on the draft calls a move from safe harbour to real-time obedience.

Read together, the AI+ injunction, the Motorola injunction, and the draft rules describe one direction of travel. Brands sue. Platforms comply early to keep their immunity. Creators learn the hard way that an automated email from X support is sometimes the first notice they get.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I Still Watch The TechWiser And TechBar Videos On AI+?

No, not in the original form. As of early May 2026 the two videos appear to have been pulled or geo-restricted in India following the April 28 order. Independent legal analysis of the case is still online from channels not named in the suit. Track the case status on the Delhi High Court website ahead of the October 5 hearing, and check archived versions through services like the Wayback Machine if you need to compare claims.

What Happens If I Post My Own Critical Review Of An AI+ Phone?

You technically fall under the John Doe portion of the order if your review tracks the same arguments TechWiser or TechBar made. That doesn’t mean you cannot review the phone. It means a takedown notice or summons is now a faster path against you. If served, file an Order XXXIX Rule 4 application before the same court within days, ideally with a lawyer who has handled creator defamation matters.

Did TechWiser Or TechBar Get Notice Before The Order?

No. The order was passed ex-parte, meaning without hearing either channel. Both creators learned of the restraint after it was issued. That is the same procedural path Motorola used in Bengaluru weeks earlier. Channels in this position can apply under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to vacate or modify the injunction, arguing they were never heard and that the balance of convenience was misapplied.

Is Buying An AI+ Phone Risky After This Order?

The order does not change the phone itself. The AI+ Pulse 2 still runs NxtQuantum OS on a UNISOC T7250 chipset, ships in the 5,999 to 7,999 rupee band, and stores user data inside India per the company. What it changes is that you have fewer independent voices testing it. Read multiple long-form reviews, including ones from outside India and from independent privacy researchers, before committing to the device.

The October 5 hearing will tell which way the Delhi High Court bends. If Justice Gedela holds the line, every Indian consumer-tech brand acquires a new playbook for inconvenient reviews. If he reads San Nutrition more strictly the second time, ADB output and a published privacy policy may again be enough to keep a video online.

Either way, the silence between now and October is doing its own work.