Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Content Linking Himayani Puri To Jeffrey Epstein

NEW DELHI — In a significant legal victory for the family of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, ordered the immediate removal of online content linking his daughter, Himayani Puri, to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The court granted interim relief in a ₹10 crore defamation suit, describing the allegations as a prima facie “scurrilous attack” that could cause “irreparable injury” to the reputation of the New York-based finance professional.

1. The Injunction: 24-Hour Takedown Mandate

Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a direct order to several identified defendants and unidentified parties (John Doe) to remove all offending URLs, articles, and videos.

• Domestic Content: All content uploaded from IP addresses within India must be taken down or removed within 24 hours.
• Global Content: For material uploaded from outside India, the court directed social media intermediaries (including Meta, Google, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube) to block access to such content within the Indian domain.
• Intermediary Responsibility: If the original uploaders fail to comply within the 24-hour window, the platforms themselves are legally bound to block the links.

2. The Allegations: “Coordinate Malicious Campaign”

Himayani Puri’s legal team, led by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, argued that she has been the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign that began around February 22, 2026.

• False Imputations: The suit alleges that defendants fabricated claims of “direct or indirect business, financial, or personal network links” with Epstein.
• Professional Damage: Specific claims suggested that a firm Puri was associated with, Realm Partners LLC, received “tainted funds” from Epstein—allegations Jethmalani called “a figment of someone’s imagination.”
• Political Malice: The counsel argued that Puri, an accomplished investor, was being targeted solely due to her parentage, suggesting both personal and political motives behind the viral posts.

3. The “Global Takedown” Debate

While the plaintiff sought a global takedown of the content, the court declined to issue such a broad order at this stage.

• Legal Precedent: Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, argued that the question of whether Indian courts can order a worldwide takedown is currently pending before a Division Bench.
• Court’s Stance: Justice Pushkarna noted that the issue would be examined later but ensured that, for now, the defamatory content remains inaccessible to the Indian public.

Case Summary: Himayani Puri v. Kunal Shukla & Ors.