New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday provided interim protection to Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, by ordering social media giants to takedown posts falsely associating her with Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious American financier and convicted child sex offender.
Justice Mini Pushkarna directed platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Google, YouTube, Meta, and LinkedIn, plus unnamed John Doe entities, to remove allegedly defamatory posts targeting the Cabinet minister’s daughter. The court restricted takedowns to content viewable in India pending a division bench’s ruling on global removal.
“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,” Justice Pushkarna ordered, as reported by Live Law.
Himayani Puri’s Rs 10 crore defamation suit seeks a John Doe order for content removal. The next hearing is set for August 7.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the plaintiff, dismissed the allegations as fabricated due to her father’s ministerial role. He highlighted a pattern, noting, “earlier, the Minister’s wife was also targeted with allegations of illegally acquiring overseas property.” Pushing for an ad-interim global injunction, Jethmalani contended, “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.”
Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued platforms lack global authority. “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,” Datar submitted.
Observing a prima facie case in Himayani Puri’s favour, the court issued summons and the interim injunction.
The lawsuit claims that defendants orchestrated a coordinated, malicious online campaign falsely linking her to Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes.
Starting around February 22, 2026, they published, spread, and boosted a wave of false, misleading, and defamatory posts, articles, videos, and digital content across social media and platforms including X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, news portals, blogs, and other websites, the suit states.
It alleges Puri faces targeted attacks in a “coordinated and motivated manner,” clearly meant to smear and discredit her in India and worldwide. The offensive material remains live, accessible, and circulating widely on social media, inflicting ongoing harm to her reputation, she states.
Defendants have spread “fabricated and disseminated baseless imputations,” such as her having direct or indirect business, financial, personal, or network ties to Epstein or his crimes; her or her former firm receiving “funding,” “financial benefits,” or dirty money from Epstein or his associates; and her scheming with Robert Millard to trigger Lehman Brothers’ collapse.
“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.
