Delhi High Court Expedites Hearing On Activist's Plea To Vacate Injunction Over Posts Linking Hardeep Puri's Daughter To Epstein

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the single judge to expeditiously decide an application filed by Kunal Shukla, a Raipur based social activist, seeking stay or vacation of the injunction order directing him to take down posts linking Himayani Puri, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's daughter, to American financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar has directed the single judge to hear both the sides and decide the application as expeditiously as possible.

The Court has also directed Shukla to file his reply to Puri's application seeking interim injunction within one week and a rejoinder to the same within another one week.

The matter is now pre-poned and listed for hearing before the single judge on April 23.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for Shukla. Puri was represented by Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani. 

Appearing for Shukla, Singh said that he was surprised as to how “this kind of an order” has been passed by the single judge.

Jethmalani strongly objected to the appeal stating that element of “perjury” is involved in the matter.

He said that Shukla was served notice and was represented before the single judge. However, Singh contested and argued that the single judge ignored the principle of Code of Civil Procedure.

“This tweet is of February. The injunction of March 17. I don't understand what was the great hurry to give me 2-3 says time to file reply. The court is behaving as if every word spoken by the plaintiff is gospel truth,” Singh said. 

Shukla is represented by Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Sudhir Nandrajog and Priya Kumar, along with Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel.

Calling it a “blanket pre-trial gag order”, Shukla, in his appeal, has said that he had published interrogative content based entirely on pre-existing, publicly available documents including SEC filings, international reports, and officially released material.

It is his case that the single judge has passed the injunction order at the very threshold, without notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, thereby virtually decreeing the suit at the ad-interim stage itself.

“The Learned Single Judge has mechanically recorded the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, without any analysis of the material on record or the settled parameters governing grant of ex parte injunctions, particularly in defamation matters involving journalistic speech,” Shukla has said.

He has submitted that the impugned order ignores the settled principle that pre-trial injunctions in defamation actions ought not to be granted where the defendant raises a plausible defence of truth, justification, and fair comment based on public records.

The appeal also states that the Single Judge has failed to appreciate that Shukla's publications were based on “undisputed public domain material” and raised questions of significant public importance concerning financial dealings and associations of persons connected to public office.

As per Shukla, the content in question is neither palpably false nor malicious, and falls squarely within the protection of fair comment and public interest reporting.

“The impugned order, by restraining such speech at the threshold, amounts to unconstitutional prior restraint and has a chilling effect on free speech and investigative journalism, contrary to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,” the appeal states.

“It also overlooks the disproportionate nature of the relief granted, inasmuch as a blanket takedown has been ordered without examining whether a lesser restrictive measure would suffice,” it adds.

The appeal has been filed through Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel.

On March 17, the single judge had 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.

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

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.

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

Title: Kunal Shukla v. Himayani Puri & Ors