An appeal challenging a Single Judge's ex parte takedown order related to Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Raipur-based social and RTI activist Kunal Shukla.
The matter is scheduled for hearing before a Division Bench on Monday.
The appeal, submitted through counsels Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, and Arpit Goel, contests the March 16 order directing social media platforms and online intermediaries to remove or block access in India to allegedly defamatory content linking Himayani Puri to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The original order was issued in a suit filed by Himayani Puri through advocate Madhulika Rai Sharma. She alleged a coordinated online campaign falsely associating her with Epstein and his criminal activities. The Single Judge granted an ex parte injunction at the initial stage and ordered the immediate takedown of such content.
Challenging the legality of the order, the appellant argues the injunction was granted without notice and without recording reasons for dispensing with notice, violating the mandatory requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that the order acts as a blanket pre-trial gag, restraining speech without providing an opportunity to be heard.
The appeal also criticises the Single Judge for failing to apply judicial mind, contending that findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm were recorded mechanically without substantive analysis of the material on record. The appellant emphasises that courts should exercise caution when granting pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases, particularly where the content is based on publicly available information.
According to the appellant, the content originates from public domain sources such as regulatory filings and international reports and represents fair comment on matters of public interest. The appellant argues the order has a chilling effect on free speech and investigative journalism, infringing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Jurisdictional objections are raised, noting the plaintiff is a foreign citizen residing outside India with no demonstrable reputation within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, and that no part of the cause of action arose within this jurisdiction.
The appellant further criticises the order for allowing the plaintiff to unilaterally identify and remove “similar content” through intermediaries, calling this an abdication of judicial function and a bypass of judicial scrutiny.
Describing the relief as excessive and disproportionate, the appellant seeks to set aside the Single Judge’s order, vacate the ex parte injunction, and restore the content removed under the Court’s directions.