Hardeep Puri's Daughter Enjoys Reputation In US, Defamation Suit Not Maintainable Here: Activist Tells Delhi High Court
Nupur Thapliyal
22 July 2026 5:37 PM IST
Kunal Shukla, a Raipur-based social activist, told the Delhi High Court today that Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, enjoys her reputation in the United States and, therefore, her defamation suit over social media posts linking her to American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is not maintainable in Delhi.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Shukla before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, sought vacation of the interim injunction directing his client to take down the impugned posts. He argued that the suit was devoid of any cause of action, not only in Delhi but anywhere else.
Singh submitted that there was no pleading in the suit establishing a cause of action against Shukla.
Singh argued that name of Puri's father, Hardeep Puri, appears 164 times in Epstein files released by the US Government and that whatever Shukla said about Himayani Puri is factual, based on publicly available material.
He contended that any reference to Hardeep Puri was immaterial to the proceedings since the Union Minister himself was not the plaintiff. “His reputation cannot be pleaded by his daughter,” Singh argued.
Emphasising the issue of territorial jurisdiction, Singh submitted that Himayani Puri is a US citizen who enjoys her reputation there and that nobody in Delhi has even seen the impugned post. He further argued that Shukla is not a resident of Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
At this stage, the Court queried as to the extent to which opinions could be expressed, even if according to Shukla they were based on documents.
To this, Singh submitted that an injunction could be granted where content was malicious and directly concerned the plaintiff, but contended that no such averments existed in the present case. He added that Shukla should be permitted to exercise his legal right to comment on matters based on material available in the public domain.
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Himayani Puri, argued that in cases of libel, any statement lowering an individual's reputation is actionable.
“The law is established. Unless I am asking for special damages, that so and so person has done this…. The fact of who has read it and as a result my reputation is defamed, it is ex facie libellous…. Any ordinary or prudent person who would read it would know it is defamatory,” he added.
The matter will now be heard next Friday.
To recall, a single judge had passed an injunction order directing Shukla, as well as various others, to take down the impugned posts. Later, Shukla filed an application seeking stay or vacation of the injunction order which was argued today.
Shukla was represented by Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Sudhir Nandrajog, along with Advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel.
On March 17, the single judge had orderedsocial 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
