Delhi High Court has asked Himayani Puri to respond to an activist’s plea challenging a gag order over alleged posts linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. The case highlights the clash between free speech and defamation, with the next hearing set for May 7.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, to present her response in a case involving alleged defamatory social media content linking her to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a notice to Himayani Puri after activist Kunal Shukla filed an application seeking removal of an earlier interim order. This order had directed him to take down content posted on social media platforms that allegedly connected Puri to Epstein.
The Court has now scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 7, stating that both the original plea and the application challenging the interim order will be heard together, as the arguments overlap.
Earlier, on April 6, a division bench of the High Court declined to hear Shukla’s appeal against the takedown order and advised him to approach the single-judge bench for relief.
In his plea, Shukla argued that the single-judge bench passed what he described as a blanket gag order without giving him proper notice or sufficient time to respond. He maintained that his social media posts were based on publicly available material and were framed as questions on matters of public importance. He specifically stated that he had published “interrogative content” using international reports and officially released documents.
However, on March 17, the single judge had directed the removal of such content and restrained not only Shukla but also other users from sharing or circulating similar material across any social media platforms. The Court had observed that Himayani Puri had established a prima facie case and noted that failure to grant interim protection could cause her irreparable harm.
During the proceedings, senior counsel representing Himayani Puri strongly opposed the activist’s claims. The counsel argued that the allegations were
“completely false, reckless and malicious”,
and further described the situation as an “orchestrated attack” driven by “personal and political malice”.
Himayani Puri has filed a civil suit seeking damages of ₹10 crore along with a permanent injunction to stop individuals and platforms from spreading what she calls defamatory content. In her plea, she has also demanded an unconditional apology and retraction from those responsible.
According to the lawsuit, the issue began around February 22, 2026, when multiple posts, articles, and videos began circulating online. The plea states:
“Commencing on or around 22.02.2026, a series of false, misleading and defamatory posts, articles, videos and digital material were published, disseminated and amplified across social media and intermediary platforms including inter alia X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, digital news portals and other web-based publications,”
highlighting the wide reach of the alleged defamatory campaign.
Puri has asserted that she is a professional working in the finance and investment sector and claims she is being unfairly targeted due to her family background. She has denied all allegations and stated that the claims attempting to link her to Epstein are entirely fabricated.
Her plea emphasizes that the defendants spread “baseless imputations” suggesting she had direct or indirect business, financial, or personal connections with Epstein, which she categorically denies.
The case also touches upon broader concerns surrounding online defamation, freedom of speech, and the responsibility of individuals while sharing content on digital platforms. The Court’s final decision is expected to clarify the balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding free expression.
Jeffrey Epstein’s case continues to attract global attention, as the so-called “Epstein files” contain extensive records including travel logs, emails, and documents related to investigations into sex trafficking involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. These materials have remained controversial since Epstein’s death in custody in 2019.
Click Here to Read More On Epstein
