Delhi HC orders removal of defamatory posts on Puri’s daughter

March 17, 2026

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal and blocking of online content that falsely links Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The court’s interim order was issued on Tuesday as part of a defamation lawsuit filed by Himayani Puri, who argued that the online posts have harmed her reputation and caused distress.

Justice Mini Pushkarna granted the order after hearing the petition that sought removal of defamatory material from multiple online platforms, including social media and digital news portals.

What the court directed

In its order, the Delhi High Court instructed social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and others to take down any content that falsely implies a connection between Himayani Puri and Jeffrey Epstein. The platforms were given 24 hours to remove the flagged posts, videos, and links, failing which they are required to block access to such content in India.

Justice Pushkarna emphasized that the content-blocking order will apply to material uploaded from and accessible within India. The judge clarified that a full global takedown order is not being issued at this stage, and the question of international jurisdiction will be considered later in proceedings.

Claims of defamation and lawsuit details

In her lawsuit, Himayani Puri sought ₹10 crore (about USD 1.2 million) in damages as well as a permanent injunction against further dissemination of defamatory content. She also demanded an unconditional apology and a full public retraction from those responsible for the posts.

The lawsuit alleged that since February 22, 2026, there has been a “coordinated and malicious online campaign” to link her to Epstein, including posts, articles, videos, and other digital material shared across platforms without facts or verification. Her counsel described the allegations as “completely false, reckless and malicious,” and argued that they were spreading because of her identity as the daughter of a prominent political figure.

Arguments from parties and jurisdiction debate

During the hearing, senior advocates representing both sides presented their arguments. Himayani’s counsel, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, stressed the harm to her global reputation as a finance professional and the need for legal protection against false imputations.

On the other hand, representatives for major internet intermediaries, including Meta (Facebook), argued against a blanket global blocking order. They maintained that Indian courts’ authority to mandate world‑wide removal of content is yet to be determined and therefore urged the court to limit its directive to content within India’s jurisdiction.

Justice Pushkarna acknowledged these concerns and stated that the content blocking order will for now be enforced within India, while allowing Puri to flag future defamatory material for removal.

Broader implications and next steps

The order reflects growing judicial scrutiny over misinformation and defamatory content circulating online. Legal experts note that cases involving reputational harm and digital defamation are increasingly reaching high courts as individuals seek remedies against false and harmful online narratives.

The case is now listed for further hearing, where arguments on additional reliefs and the scope of jurisdiction for global takedown orders are expected to be considered.