Delhi HC Orders Takedown Of Posts Linking Hardeep Puri’s Daughter To Jeffrey Epstein, Limits Relief To India For Now

A single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order in a defamation suit filed by Himayani Puri seeking removal of online content and damages of ₹10 crore.

The Court restrained the defendants, including social media platforms and unidentified persons (John Doe parties), from publishing or circulating any defamatory material against the plaintiff. It also directed that URLs and links flagged in the suit be taken down within 24 hours, failing which intermediaries must block access to such content.

“The present injunction order will operate within the Indian domain with respect to the video/content uploaded from IP addresses within India… In so far as URLs/links uploaded from outside India, the defendants are directed to ensure that they are blocked in India,” the Court ordered.

Justice Pushkarna noted that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience lay with her. The Court further held that irreparable harm would be caused if the publication of such content was not restrained.

However, the Court declined to pass a global takedown order at this stage, noting submissions by intermediaries such as Google and Meta that the question of whether Indian courts can order global blocking of online content is currently pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.

“For the time being, it will be for India. Let them file a reply and then we will consider,” the Court said, granting time to the platforms to place their detailed responses on record.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Puri, argued that she had been subjected to a coordinated and malicious campaign falsely alleging links with Epstein and his criminal activities. He contended that the allegations were entirely baseless and aimed at tarnishing her reputation due to her being the daughter of a Cabinet Minister.

He further submitted that the defamatory material included claims that Puri had professional or financial links with Epstein or his associates, and that a firm she was associated with had received tainted funds, allegations he described as “a figment of someone’s imagination.”

Opposing the plea for a global blocking order, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, argued that intermediaries cannot enforce worldwide takedowns without clear judicial determination, especially when the issue is under consideration before a Division Bench.

He suggested that content uploaders themselves be directed to remove the posts globally, and emphasised that intermediaries act only upon court orders or government directions.

The Court also heard objections from counsel representing certain journalists, who argued that some of the content flagged was either already removed or not defamatory, and warned that sweeping orders could impact journalistic freedom.

Responding to these concerns, the Court observed that verifying allegations related to Epstein falls within the domain of investigating agencies, not journalists.

In addition to ordering takedowns, the Court granted liberty to the plaintiff to notify intermediaries of any fresh defamatory content, which must then be acted upon in accordance with the order.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on August 7.