The Delhi High Court has ordered social media platforms like X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and several digital news portals to immediately remove content that falsely linked Himayani Puri, daughter of Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
What the Delhi High Court ordered – and what it did not order
Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that a prima facie case of defamation was established and issued a firm interim injunction, the Bar and Bench said. The order was unequivocal: “Defendants may not post or distribute content on any platform detailed in the complaint.”
The platforms were given 24 hours to comply. If the users who uploaded the content do not remove the flagged content in this window, the social media companies must themselves block access to the posts, videos and links in question.
The Delhi High Court has also given Himayani Puri the freedom to flag similar new content as it appears, with platforms bound to act on such notices.
However, a Delhi court has stopped short of issuing a global blocking order, at least for now. Justice Pushkarna clarified that the content blocking order will be limited to India for the time being. “For now it (blocking order) will be for India. Let them file a reply and then we will consider,” Bar and Bench quoted Justice elhi HC j as saying.
The operative order reflected this position: “This injunction will operate in the Indian domain with respect to video/content uploaded from IP addresses in India… In respect of URLs/links which have been uploaded from outside India, the defendants are directed to ensure that they are blocked in India.”
What Himayani Puri Claimed: “Personal Malice and Political Malice”
Himayani Puri, an American citizen and financial and investment professional, filed the lawsuit ₹10 million in damages, a permanent injunction, an unconditional apology and a full retraction. According to the lawsuit against her, a coordinated campaign began on February 22, 2026, when a flood of posts, videos and articles began appearing across platforms.
“Beginning on or about 22.02.2026, a number of false, misleading and defamatory posts, articles, videos and digital materials were published and disseminated and disseminated across social media and intermediary platforms,” the Bar and Bench quoted the plea as saying.
The allegations were specific and serious. The content alleged that Himayani Puri had direct or indirect business, financial or personal ties to sex offender Epstein and his criminal network.
Separately, Real Partners LLC, where Himayani Puri was employed, was alleged to have received funds or embezzled money from Epstein or his associates. Another allegation alleged that one Robert Millard acted in concert with her to engineer the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Hardeep Singh Puri’s daughter described everything as “completely false, malicious and lacking any factual basis” and claimed that she was targeted “coordinatedly and motivated” only because of her father’s position in the Cabinet.
Lead advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who argued on her behalf, was characteristically blunt in court.
“She has been the subject of very offensive posts. It appears to be a coordinated attack at the behest of some source that I will not disclose at this time. I am the victim of the attack because I happen to be the daughter of a cabinet minister. So there is both personal malice and I suspect political malice. It is all a figment of someone’s imagination that the firm is being accused of professional misuse of money. And moral turpitude, that is the sum and essence of character defamation,” the Bar and Bench quoted Jethmalani as saying.
The Global Blocking Order Debate: Platforms Push Back
The most legally contentious moment of the Delhi HC hearing centered on whether the court can — or should — issue a global content blocking order. Social media brokers were united in their opposition.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Met, urged the court to exercise restraint. “The issue of global blocking is pending before a division bench of this court. India cannot block globally. Similarly, England cannot block globally,” he argued.
Datar proposed an alternative: rather than ordering platforms to block content worldwide, the court should order the uploaders themselves to take it down. “If uploaders take it down, it’s happening globally. Other high courts are also issuing takedown orders for India,” he said.
Google’s legal representative took the same stance. Both platforms pointed to a related legal issue currently pending before a division bench of the Supreme Court, arguing that the global order should await its decision.
Jethmalani was having none of it, arguing that existing law allows for global blocking orders where content is uploaded from India. He cited Justice Prathib Singh’s judgment in which the global blocking order was issued – and noted that the decision had not been stayed.
Datar balked, calling for detailed hearings before any global directive. “As a mediator, I can’t use my mind and take it down. I can only do it at the direction of the court or at the direction of the government… All the platforms here are saying that there can’t be a global blocking order because it creates a lot of problems. Today we can have an Indian order. If they want a global order, then we would like to argue and file an opposition,” he may receive opposition, and the US prosecutor is also against it. he argued.
Ultimately, the court sided with the platforms on this bottleneck — for now.
Journalists in the dock — and a heated exchange at the Delhi HC
Two journalists whose work was among the flagged content also opposed the lawsuit, arguing through their attorney that some of the material attributed to them had already been retracted, that some of the allegations had been wrongly attributed to them, and that a blanket injunction would threaten press freedom.
“An order against us would stifle journalistic freedom. There is a global investigation against Epstein, people have had to resign,” the Bar and Bench quoted their lawyer as informing the court.
Justice Pushkarna was unmoved, noting that it fell to investigative agencies, not journalists, to verify the allegations against Epstein. “Investigating agencies will not use material from journalists,” she said.
When the journalists’ adviser invoked the tradition of accountability journalism and claimed that “journalism has exposed big frauds”, Jethmalani’s response was swift and pointed: “Please don’t put yourself in that category.”
What happens next
The case will return to court on August 7. Meanwhile, the platforms have 24 hours to respond to any content flagged by Himayani Puri, and she reserves the right to bring new instances of similar content to the court’s attention. The issue of the global blocking order remains unresolved – and may not be resolved quickly given the ongoing bench proceedings.
