Delhi HC urges swift decision on plea challenging takedown order linking Himayani Puri to Epstein

A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar disposed of Shukla's appeal, while permitting him to file his reply to the interim injunction application moved by Himayani Puri.

The Bench also advanced the next date of hearing before the Single Judge to April 23, instead of the earlier listing in August.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared on behalf of Kunal Shukla and made submissions before the Division Bench. Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, and Arpit Goel also appeared for Kunal Shukla

The Court, however, did not interfere with the interim relief at this stage and observed that the matter should be considered promptly after hearing both sides.

The appeal had been filed by Raipur-based social and RTI activist Kunal Shukla, challenging an ex parte takedown order passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on March 16.

The impugned order directed social media platforms and online intermediaries to remove or block access within India to content alleged to be defamatory, which linked Himayani Puri to convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The order was passed in a civil suit instituted by Himayani Puri through advocate Madhulika Rai Sharma. She submitted that a coordinated and malicious online campaign was falsely associating her with Epstein and his criminal activities. Accepting her plea at the initial stage, the Single Judge granted an ex parte injunction and directed the immediate removal of the content.

In his appeal, Shukla contended that the injunction was granted without prior notice and without recording reasons for dispensing with such notice, contrary to the requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

He argued that the order operates as a blanket pre-trial gag, restricting speech at the threshold without affording an opportunity of hearing.

It was further submitted that the Single Judge failed to undertake a detailed judicial analysis while recording findings on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The appellant emphasised that courts must exercise caution while granting pre-trial injunctions in defamation matters.

Shukla also argued that the content in question was based on publicly available material, including international reports and regulatory filings, and constituted fair comment on issues of public importance. According to him, the takedown order has a chilling effect on free speech and investigative journalism, infringing Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The appeal also raised jurisdictional concerns, stating that the plaintiff is a foreign citizen residing outside India and lacks a demonstrable reputation within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Further, the appellant objected to the direction allowing the plaintiff to identify and seek removal of "similar content" through intermediaries, arguing that it bypasses judicial scrutiny and amounts to the delegation of judicial power.

Terming the relief granted as excessive and disproportionate, the appellant sought the setting aside of the impugned order, vacation of the interim injunction, and restoration of the removed content.

With the Division Bench now directing an expedited hearing, the matter will be taken up by the Single Judge on April 23, where both sides will be heard on the continuation of the interim injunction. (ANI)