|
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to Himayani Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, on an application seeking vacation of the interim injunction granted in her defamation suit concerning articles linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. The matter is now listed for hearing on May 7.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, along with Advocate Mayank Jain, appeared for defendant Kunal Shukla, an RTI activist from Chhattisgarh, and argued that the injunction order violated provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). They submitted that the requirement under Order XXXIX Rule 3 mandating prior notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction had not been followed, relying on a Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala. Justice Mini Pushkarna, after hearing the submissions, said, "Let me issue notice. Let them file a reply," and sought a response from Puri on the application moved under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for vacating the temporary injunction. The lawyer further contended that despite earlier statements before the Division Bench indicating readiness to argue, the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder. It was emphasised that courts are obligated under the CPC to decide injunction applications within 30 days. The Court fixed the matter for May 7 at 2:30 PM, noting that it would pass a "practical order" rather than conduct an academic hearing. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for Himayani Puri, while Advocate Varun Pathak represented Meta. Earlier, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar had directed expeditious consideration of Shukla's plea challenging the interim takedown order and advanced the hearing before the Single Judge to April 23. The appeal stemmed from an ex parte order dated March 16 directing intermediaries to remove or block access within India to content alleged to be defamatory, which linked Himayani Puri to Epstein. Puri had argued that a coordinated and malicious online campaign falsely associated her with Epstein and his criminal activities. The Single Judge had accepted her plea at the initial stage and granted an interim injunction directing immediate takedown of the content. Shukla, in challenge, contended that the order imposed a pre-trial gag on free speech without prior notice or adequate reasoning, and argued that the content was based on publicly available material, raising concerns of a chilling effect on free speech and journalism. (ANI)
|
