The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief in a case involving Himayani Puri, the daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. The matter concerns a plea over social media posts linking her to notorious child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Takedown Order To Social Media:
A single-judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna directed social media platforms like Twitter, Google, YouTube, Meta and LinkedIn and other such sites to take down the defamatory content against the Union Minister’s daughter.

The judge also said that for now, the Court will look at removing content only within India’s jurisdiction, because the issue of a “global takedown” is still pending before a division bench of the High Court.

Court’s Key Directions:

The court further directed the defendants to block access to URLs and links that were uploaded outside India.

The judge said:

"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,"

Himayani Puri has filed a defamation suit of Rs. 10 crore and has asked for a John Doe order for taking down the content.

Allegations Called False:

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Himayani, told the Delhi High court that the allegations against her are completely untrue and have been made only because she is the daughter of a Cabinet Minister. He also said that similar claims were earlier made against the Minister’s wife, accusing her of illegally acquiring property abroad.

Meta Opposes Global Takedown:

While asking for an ad-interim injunction, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, told the Delhi High Court that the platform can only restrict access to the content within India and cannot do a global takedown.

Debate On Global Blocking:

In response, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said that if the content comes from devices in India, then a global takedown order can be allowed.

“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.

Court Issues Summons, Grants Relief:

However, Senior Advocate Datar opposed this. He told the Delhi High Court that the issue of global takedown is still being considered by a Division Bench.

“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 said.

The Court then issued summons in the case and said that there is a prima facie case in favour of Himayani Puri. It granted interim relief and ordered:

“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.

Who Are The Defendants:

In the suit, Defendants 1 to 14 include known individuals like journalists and social media accounts, while Defendants 15 to 18 are government authorities. The remaining defendants are listed as John Doe, meaning they are not yet identified.

According to the plaint, the defendants carried out a planned and malicious online campaign falsely linking the plaintiff to Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged crimes.

Posts Spread Across Platforms:

“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.

The plaint also says that she is being targeted in a planned and coordinated way to harm her reputation in India and abroad.

It adds that the content is still available online and is being widely shared, which is continuing to damage her reputation.

Serious Allegations In Suit:

The suit says that the defendants have “fabricated and disseminated baseless imputations”. It claims they falsely said she had direct or indirect business, financial, personal, or “network” links with Jeffrey Epstein or his activities.

It also alleges that she, or an organisation linked to her, received “funding,” “financial benefits,” or tainted money from Epstein or his associates. Further, it claims that one Robert Millard acted together with her in connection with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Claims Denied As False:

“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 matter has been listed for further hearing on August 7th, 2026.

Case Details: Himayani Puri vs Kunal Shukla and Ors.