The Delhi High Court ordered removal of defamatory content linking Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri’s daughter Himayani Puri to Jeffrey Epstein, with Justice Mini Pushkarna limiting the block to India-accessible content.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of defamatory content relating to Union Minister Hardeep Puri’s daughter, Himayani Puri, which connects her to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Justice Mini Pushkarna specified that the content-blocking order would initially apply only to articles uploaded from and accessible within India.
This decision comes amid concerns raised by various internet intermediaries, including Google and Meta, regarding the authority of an Indian court to impose global content blocking orders that might affect material uploaded from or available in other countries. These intermediaries requested to present their views before any broader order was issued, citing a pending legal question before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Proceeding to issue an order to remove content flagged by Puri for India specifically, Justice Pushkarna stated,
“For the time being, it [blocking order] will be for India. Let them file a reply and then we will consider,”
The order specified,
“The present injunction order will operate within the Indian domain with respect to the video/content uploaded from the IP addresses within India… In so far as URLs/links that have been uploaded from outside India, the defendants are directed to ensure that they are blocked in India,”
The Court restrained the continued publication of any defamatory articles linking Puri to Epstein, stating,
“The court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out, the balance of convenience lies in their favour and irreparable injury will be caused to them if the defendants are not stopped from publishing the content that is the subject matter of the suit.”
Various defendants in Puri’s suit were instructed to remove URLs to content deemed defamatory. Should these uploaders fail to take down the content within 24 hours, the respective social media platforms must block access to the flagged posts, videos, and links.
Additionally, the Court allowed Puri to notify social media platforms if similar defamatory material is uploaded in the future for removal.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Defers Arguments on Medha Patkar’s Plea in Defamation Case
Puri, a U.S. citizen, is seeking Rs 10 crore in damages, a permanent injunction against several social media companies and unidentified parties, as well as the elimination of defamatory content found across global online platforms.
Her suit claims that since February 22, 2026, several social media entities have made allegations connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein and his criminal activities. It was alleged that Real Partners LLC, where Puri worked, received illicit financial benefits connected to Epstein or his associates, and that one Robert Millard conspired with Puri to facilitate the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Puri argues that these allegations are completely false, malicious, and lack any factual basis, asserting that she is being targeted to malign her reputation both domestically and globally due to her connection as Hardeep Puri’s daughter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani represented Puri, stating,
“She has been the subject of very scurrilous posts. This seems to be a concerted attack on the behest of some source which I will not reveal at this time. I am a victim of the attack because I happen to be the daughter of a cabinet minister. So there is both a personal malice and I suspect political malice as well. This is all a figment of someone’s imagination that a firm of which I used to be a partner received money from Epstein. I am accused of professional misconduct and moral turpitude. That is sum and substance of the nature of the nature of defamation.”
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar represented Meta and urged the Court to refrain from issuing a blanket global content block order.
He argued,
“The issue of global blocking is pending before a division bench of this court. India can’t block globally. Similarly, England can’t block globally.”
Jethmalani, however, contended that current law permits global blocking if offending content originates from an Indian source. Datar suggested that instead of directing intermediaries to block content, the individuals who uploaded the objectionable material should be ordered to remove it.
He noted,
“If the uploaders take it down, it is done globally. Other High Courts are also passing takedown orders for India,”
Counsel for Google voiced a similar stance, cautioning against global orders until the legal question of their legitimacy is settled.
Citing a ruling from a Bench that had issued a global blocking order, Jethmalani emphasized that this judgment remains in effect. Datar cautioned that a detailed hearing is necessary before deciding on implementing a global block order.
Datar argued,
“As an intermediary, I can’t apply my mind and take it down. I can only do it on the court’s directions or after direction from the government… All the platforms here are saying that there can’t be a global blocking order because that creates a lot of problems. We can have an Indian order today. If they want a global order, then we would like to argue and file a counter. My instructions are that plaintiff (Puri) is a resident of the US and she can’t get a global order in the US also,”
When the Court inquired whether any of the articles flagged by Puri were uploaded from outside India, Datar confirmed that all were uploaded from India, indicating that while a global takedown order may not be legal for non-Indian uploads, the law permits it for Indian sources.
Jethmalani asserted,
“I concede that if anything has been uploaded from outside India, then take down order may not be legal at this stage. But if they have been uploaded from India, a global takedown order is warranted. I have a global reputation.”
The Court then asked for Meta’s detailed response to be considered before deciding on the global blocking order. The attorneys for two journalists also opposed Puri’s request, suggesting that some flagged content had already been removed and that they were not responsible for certain allegations attributed to them.
Their counsel argued,
“One order against us would stifle journalistic freedom. There is a global investigation against Mr. Epstein; people have had to resign,”
The Court retorted that any verification of the allegations against Epstein should be handled by the investigating authorities, not journalists.
Justice Pushkarna mentioned,
“Investigating agencies will not use material from journalists,”
The lawyer claimed,
“Fair journalism ought to be permitted. Major scams have been revealed through journalism.”
Jethmalani countered,
“Please do not put yourself in that category,”
The matter will be heard next on August 7. Puri’s legal team includes Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur, Pramod Dubey, and Sunil Dalal, along with advocates Ravi Sharma, Shantanu Agarwal, Akhil Sacher, Madhulika Rai Sharma, Kapil Rustagi, Manas Arora, Syed Hamza Ghayour, Abhinav Tyagi, Rasveen Kaur Kapoor, Vineeth Varma Penmetsa, and Anjani Kumar Rai.
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
