The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to interfere with an interim order directing an activist to remove social media posts linking Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar dismissed the appeal filed by activist Kunal Shukla, directing him instead to present his arguments before the single judge who originally passed the injunction. The court emphasized that the single judge should decide whether to continue or vacate the stay “as expeditiously as possible” and “uninfluenced by any observations” made during the appellate proceedings.
The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by Himayani Puri, an investment professional, who is seeking ₹10 crore in damages. Puri alleges a “coordinated and malicious online campaign” aimed at tarnishing her reputation by suggesting she maintained business or personal ties with the late Jeffrey Epstein.
According to the plea, the “baseless imputations” began appearing around February 22, 2026, across platforms including X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Instagram. Puri maintains that she is being targeted solely because of her father’s position as the Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Arguments in Court
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Kunal Shukla, challenged the “blanket gag order” issued by the single judge on March 17. Singh argued that the order was passed without giving the appellant due notice or time to file a reply.
“What was the hurry in not giving me two days over content published in February?” Singh asked, contending that the single judge had accepted Puri’s statements as “gospel truth.” He further noted that the content was “interrogative” in nature and based on publicly available international reports and official documents.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Himayani Puri, opposed the appeal, defending the necessity of the injunction to prevent further dissemination of defamatory material.
While the Division Bench refused to set aside the take-down order, it did agree to expedite the process. The court granted Shukla one week to file his formal reply to the injunction application.
“Let the matter be placed before the learned single judge on April 23,” the Bench directed.
The court declined a request by Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog to expedite the entire trial, stating, “We will keep our hands off about any observation… You go and contest everything there.”
The allegations in question refer to the “Epstein files”—thousands of pages of documents, including travel logs and emails, stemming from criminal investigations into sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. These documents have remained a subject of intense public discourse since Epstein’s death in custody in 2019. Puri’s lawsuit categorically denies any involvement in these networks, describing the claims as “devoid of factual foundation.”
