Delhi HC Orders India-Specific Takedown of Online Posts Defaming Himayani Puri
Background of the Dispute
The Delhi High Court, in Himayani Puri vs Kunal Shukla & Ors, passed an important interim order on March 17 directing the prompt removal of allegedly defamatory material circulated online which associated Union Minister Hardeep Puri’s daughter, Himayani Puri, with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The matter came before a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Ms Justice Mini Pushkarna, who directed multiple social media and online platforms to take down specific posts, videos and links within 24 hours. The Court treated the content as prima facie defamatory and capable of causing serious damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and her family.
The suit filed by Himayani Puri, a US citizen residing in New York, seeks damages of Rs 10 crore and a John Doe injunction (also known as a “rolling” or “Ashok Kumar” injunction) against unidentified persons posting or circulating the impugned content online.
Parties Involved and Relief Sought
Plaintiff
- Plaintiff: Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Cabinet Minister Hardeep Puri, a professional based in New York.
- Relief claimed:
- Rs 10 crore as damages for defamation
- An injunction against named and unknown defendants restraining them from publishing or circulating defamatory material
- A direction to intermediaries to remove and/or block access to the impugned content
Defendants
The suit categorised defendants into different groups:
- Defendants 1–14:
- Individuals and entities including journalists and media personalities who had allegedly created, published or circulated the defamatory content.
- Defendants 15–18:
- Government authorities and regulatory entities with powers or obligations related to online content regulation.
- John Doe defendants:
- Unidentified individuals and entities that had uploaded, shared, mirrored or otherwise propagated the challenged material.
Allegations Made in the Impugned Content
According to the plaint, from February 22, 2026 onwards, several posts and videos began circulating on various platforms making a series of serious allegations against Himayani Puri, including:
That she allegedly had direct or indirect:
- business connections,
- financial ties,
- personal relationships, or
- network associations
with Jeffrey Epstein or his criminal activities.
That Real Partners LLC, a firm where she had been employed, purportedly:
- received funds or “tainted” financial benefits from Jeffrey Epstein or his associates, and/or
- was otherwise linked to Epstein’s financial dealings.
That one Robert Millad allegedly acted in concert with her to contribute to or engineer the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The plaintiff contended that these assertions were:
- False,
- Malicious, and
- Entirely unsupported by verifiable evidence.
She claimed that the posts represented a targeted and coordinated attempt to malign her both in India and internationally, primarily because she is the daughter of a senior Union Minister.
Plaintiff’s Submissions Before the Court
Senior Advocate Mr Mahesh Jethmalani appeared on behalf of Himayani Puri. His principal submissions included:
- The attacks were scurrilous and coordinated, apparently driven by:
- personal malice, and
- suspected political hostility.
- He highlighted that similar attempts had earlier been made to tarnish the reputation of the Minister’s wife through unsubstantiated claims about alleged illegal overseas property acquisitions.
- He argued that the current round of allegations:
- were products of “someone’s imagination”,
- falsely imputed professional misconduct and moral turpitude, and
- wrongly suggested receipt of funds from Jeffrey Epstein.
- He emphasised that:
- The plaintiff has a global professional standing, and
- Such content, left unchecked, could severely and irreparably damage her reputation worldwide.