Delhi High Court orders blocking of defamatory articles linking Hardeep Puri's daughter Himayani Puri to Jeffrey Epstein

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ordered the removal of defamatory content which links Union Minister Hardeep Puri’s daughter, Himayani Puri, to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Justice Mini Pushkarna directed several social media entities who had uploaded the content, including John Doe defendants (persons whose identities are unknown), to remove the content within a day.

The Bench said that if the uploaders fail to take down the posts, videos and links, social media intermediaries should block the content. However, the Court clarified that this content blocking order against intermediaries would be confined to articles uploaded from and available in India and no global blocking order was being passed against the intermediaries at this stage.

This was in view of concerns by various internet intermediaries, including Google and Meta, about whether an Indian court can issue global content blocking orders that would affect content uploaded from or available in other countries as well.

This legal question is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court, they pointed out today, while urging the single-judge not to pass a global block order.

They called on the Court to hear their detailed response before it may pass any global block order.

"For the time being, it [blocking order] will be for India. Let them file a reply and then we will consider," Justice Pushkarna eventually said.

The Court proceeded to order the takedown of content flagged by Puri.

"The present injunction order [against intermediaries] will operate within the Indian domain with respect to the video/content uploaded from the IP addresses within India... In so far as URLs/links that have been uploaded from outside India, the defendants [intermediaries] are directed to ensure that they are blocked in India," the order stated.

The Court, thereby, restrained the continued publication of any defamatory articles linking Puri to Epstein.

"The court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out, the balance of convenience lies in their favour and irreparable injury will be caused to them if the defendants are not stopped from publishing the content that is the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the following directions are issued. Defendants are restrained from publishing or circulating the contents, on any platform whatsoever, the details of which are given in the plaint," it ordered.

Various parties arrayed as defendants in Puri's suit were ordered to take down URLs to content flagged in the plea as defamatory. If the uploaders fail to take down the said content within 24 hours, social media platforms concerned are to block access to such posts, videos and links, the Court added.

The Court also granted Puri liberty to inform the social media platforms concerned if similar new content is uploaded so that they too may be taken down.

The Court further took note of Puri's plea for a global blocking order and the request by social media intermediaries not to pass such an order right away since a related legal question is presently pending before a Division Bench.

Himayani Puri, a US citizen, has sought ₹10 crore as damages, a permanent injunction against several social media entities and John Doe parties (unknown persons), and the removal of defamatory content published across the world on various online platforms.

A direction has also been sought to social media intermediaries – X, Google, Meta, and LinkedIn – that when Puri brings similar defamatory statements or imputations to their notice, they must take them down.

According to Puri’s suit, starting from February 22, 2026, several social media entities started making allegations that she (Puri) maintained direct or indirect business, financial, personal, or other network associations with Jeffrey Epstein and/or his criminal activities.

It was also alleged that Real Partners LLC, where Puri was employed, received funding, financial benefits, or tainted funds from Epstein or his associates and that one Robert Millard allegedly acted in concert with Puri to engineer the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Puri has argued that these allegations are entirely false, malicious, and devoid of any factual foundation.

She adds that she 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 and that it is being done only because she is Hardeep Puri’s daughter.

Today's hearing

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani led arguments on Puri's behalf today.

"She has been the subject of very scurrilous posts. This seems to be a concerted attack on the behest of some source which I will not reveal at this time. I am a victim of the attack because I happen to be the daughter of a cabinet minister. So there is both a personal malice and I suspect political malice as well. This is all a figment of someone's imagination that a firm of which I used to be a partner received money from Epstein. I am accused of professional misconduct and moral turpitude. That is sum and substance of the nature of the nature of defamation," he told the Court.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Meta and urged the Court not to pass a blanket content block order that could be applicable to platforms across the world.

"The issue of global blocking is pending before a division bench of this court. India can't block globally. Similarly, England can't block globally," he said.

Jethmalani countered that the law at present is that if offending content is uploaded from a computer source in India, it can be blocked globally.

Datar, in turn, suggested that instead of issuing blocking orders to internet intermediaries, those who uploaded the objectionable content may be asked to take it down.

"If the uploaders take it down, it is done globally. Other High Courts are also passing takedown orders for India," he said.

Google's counsel also took a similar stand and urged the Court not to issue any global blocking order. The issue over whether global content block orders can be issued by Indian courts is yet to be decided by a Division Bench of the High Court, various social media intermediaries told Justice Pushkarna.

However, Jethmalani referred to a judgment passed by a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, where a global blocking order was issued. This ruling has not been stayed, the Court was further told.

Datar then urged the Court to first have a detailed hearing on whether a global block order is required before such a directive is issued.

"As an intermediary, I can't apply my mind and take it down. I can only do it on the court's directions or after direction from the government... All the platforms here are saying that there can't be a global blocking order because that creates a lot of problems. We can have an Indian order today. If they want a global order, then we would like to argue and file a counter. My instructions are that plaintiff (Puri) is a resident of US and she can't get a global order in the US also," argued Datar.

The Court then asked if any of the articles objected to by Puri were uploaded from outside India.

"All of them have been uploaded from India. I concede that if anything has been uploaded from outside India, then take down order may not be legal at this stage. But if they have been uploaded from India, a global takedown order is warranted. I have a global reputation," replied Jethmalani.

Datar maintained that Meta's detailed response must be considered before the Court decides whether it can pass a global content blocking order.

"There are a lot of serious issues that we are arguing before the Court (Division Bench). My instructions are that if he (Jethmalani) wants a global order, then we file a counter affidavit," he said.

The counsel representing two journalists also opposed Puri's plea for content blocking. They said that some of the content flagged by Puri was taken down, that allegations not levelled by them were attributed to them and that some of the content referred to was not defamatory.

"An order against us would stifle the journalistic freedom. There is a global investigation against Mr Epstein, people have had to resign," their counsel argued.

The Court replied that it is up to the investigating agencies to verify the allegations against Epstein, not journalists.

"Investigating agencies will not use material from journalists," Justice Pushkarna added.

"Fair journalism ought to be permitted. Major scams have been revealed through journalism," the lawyer urged.

"Please do not put yourself in that category," Jethmalani retorted.

The matter will be heard next on August 7.

Puri was also represented by Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur, Pramod Dubey, and Sunil Dalal 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. The defamation suit has been filed by Lexster Law LLP.

[Live Coverage]