Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Posts Linking Union Minister Hardeep Puri's Daughter To Jeffrey Epstein, But No Global Relief

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted interim relief to Himayani Puri, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's daughter, seeking a global take down of posts linking her to American financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered social media platforms like Twitter, Google, YouTube, Meta and LinkedIn and other john doe entities to take down the allegedly defamatory content against the Cabinet Minister's daughter.

The judge however clarified that for the time being the Court will consider take down of content in India alone, since the 'global takedown' aspect is pending before a division bench of the High Court.

"Considering that the matter regarding injunction at global level is subject matter of Division Bench, orders in that regard may not be passed. It is directed that the directions passed today are to be followed within India jurisdiction, Indian domain. The present injunction order operates within Indian domain wrt videos and content uploaded within Indian jurisdiction and from IP addresses within India. In so far as URLs and links uploaded from outside India, defendants are directed to block access from being viewed in India," Justice Pushkarna ordered.

The matter is now listed for August 07.

Himayani Puri has filed a Rs. 10 crore defamation suit seeking john doe order for taking down of the content.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for Himayani argued that the allegations against her are false and have been orchestrated merely because she is the daughter of a Cabinet Minister. He argued that earlier, the Minister's wife was also targeted with allegations of illegally acquiring overseas property.

As Jethmalani pressed for ad interim injunction, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for Meta submitted that the platform can only block the content in India, and not globally.

Jethmalani argued that if the content is uploaded from a computer device in India, then a global takedown order is permissible. "All uploaded from computer devices within India. That is the test. I am a resident of New York. If there is any uploading from outside India then that has to be considered but if it is uploaded from computer devices within India, a global takedown order is completely permissible," he argued.

However Datar contended that the issue of global takedown is pending before a division bench of the Court. "We operate only within India. We will take down only within India. On global, we have taken stand that we can't do it globally and we are contesting the issue. As an intermediary I cant apply my mind and take it down. I can do only on basis of court order or govt notification…It can't be a global blocking order...If they need a global order, I will file my counter and argue," he submitted.

The Court then proceeded to issue summons in the suit and observing that a prima facie case was made out in Himayani's favour, granted interim injunction.

"Defendants 1-14 and john doe are restrained from publishing or circulating the contents, on any platform. Defendants 1-14 are directed to remove links and urls of impugned content. In case content is not taken down within 24 hours, the defendants 15-18 shall remove and block access to the posts, videos, articles and links. In addition to the aforementioned urls, the plaintiff is at liberty to inform platforms or intermediaries about subsequent urls regarding identical content which shall be acted upon by defendants 15-18. In case of any doubt, the defendants 15-18 are at liberty to seek clarification from plaintiff who will then apply to court," it ordered.

Defendants 1-14 have been named in the suit and include journalists and social media platforms. Defendants 15-18 are government authorities. The remaining defendants are john doe (unidentifiable).

As per the suit, a coordinated and malicious online campaign has been orchestrated by the Defendants, purporting to link her to Jeffrey Epstein and his criminal activities.

“Commencing on or around 22.02.2026, a series of false, misleading, and defamatory posts, articles, videos, and digital materials were published, disseminated, and amplified across social media and intermediary platforms, including, inter alia, "X" (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, digital news portals, blogs, and other web-based publications,” the suit states.

It adds that Puri is being targeted in a “coordinated and motivated manner” with the clear intention of maligning and discrediting her, both in India and on a global scale.

She has said that the impugned publications continue to remain live, accessible, and widely circulated across social media, causing sustained reputational damage to her.

The suit states that the defendants have “fabricated and disseminated baseless imputations”, including that she maintained direct or indirect business, financial, personal, or "network" links with Jeffrey Epstein or his criminal activities, that she or a firm where she worked received "funding," "financial benefits," or tainted money from Jeffrey Epstein or his associates and that one Mr. Robert Millard allegedly acted with her to engineer the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

“These allegations are entirely false, malicious, and devoid of any factual foundation. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 14 and several unidentified John Doe(s)/Ashok Kumar(s) have strategically propagated these unfounded allegations through sensationalist and manipulative formats, including edited videos, misleading captions, and doctored thumbnails, designed to maximise public outrage, digital virality, and consequent reputational harm to the Plaintiff,” the suit states.

The suit has been filed through Advocates Shantanu Agarwal, Manas Arora and Syed Hamza Ghayour.

Counsel for Puri: Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani, 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

Title: HIMAYANI PURI v. KUNAL SHUKLA & ORS