Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
ISHA FOUNDATION – Appellant
Versus
GOOGLE LLC & ORS. – Respondent
CS(OS)-957/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajshekhar Rao, Simranjeet Singh, Pushpaveni Kakkaje, Jagdish Solanki, Rohan Jaitley, Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Areeb Amanullah, Rishabh Pant, Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Apurbaa Dutta
For the Respondents: Aditya Gupta, Rohith Venkatesan, Vani Kaushik, V. T. Perumal, Ram Sankar, K Vaijayanthi, Shaarumathi, Ashwin Sam, Nagender
Jurisdiction in online defamation suits is established where the 'maximum wrong' is felt. Authorization defects in trust suits are curable and not grounds for rejection. Interim injunctions against speech are granted if content is malicious or palpably false, causing irreparable reputational harm.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 19, Order VII Rule 11 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 75 - Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 48 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Territorial jurisdiction in defamation suits - In a suit for compensation for defamation by publication on the internet, jurisdiction is determined by the "maximum wrong" rule. If a plaintiff can plead and demonstrate that the wrong was felt most prominently in a particular jurisdiction through evidence of loss of reputation or goodwill among people residing there, the Court of that jurisdiction is competent to entertain the suit (Paras 15-21).
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Authorization - A defect in the authorization of a person to institute a suit on behalf of a trust is a curable procedural defect and not a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, as it does not render the suit barred by law (Paras 31-33).
(C) Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Applicability - The provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, including Section 48, are applicable only to private trusts and do not extend to public charitable trusts (Para 23).
(D) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 75 - Continuing wrong/Campaign - Where defamatory publications are part of a larger orchestrated campaign, the court may consider the overall campaign rather than isolating individual publications for the purpose of limitation, especially when seeking mandatory injunctions distinct from damages (Paras 38-42). (E) Interim Injunction - Defamation - While courts must balance freedom of speech with the right to reputation, an ad-interim injunction may be granted if the content is found to be malicious, palpably false, or involves click-bait titles and unfounded comparisons that transcend fair criticism, causing irreparable harm to reputation (Paras 48-55).
Facts of the case:
A public charitable trust filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions and damages against an online video-sharing platform, a magazine, and its editor for publishing several defamatory videos and articles targeting the trust and its founder. The defendants moved an application for rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, improper authorization, and limitation. Simultaneously, the plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction for the removal of the content.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that territorial jurisdiction was established under the "maximum wrong" rule. The objection regarding authorization was deemed a curable defect. The Indian Trusts Act was held inapplicable to the public trust. The Court further observed that the impugned content was per se defamatory, malicious, and contradicted official government records and judicial orders, thus justifying an interim injunction.
Issues: (i) Whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction over the suit given the global nature of internet publications; (ii) Whether lack of formal authorization by the trust board warrants rejection of the plaint; (iii) Whether certain publications were barred by limitation; and (iv) Whether the defamatory content met the threshold for an ad-interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction in internet defamation is tied to where the most significant damage to reputation occurs. Procedural defects in authorization do not constitute a legal bar to a suit. Free speech does not protect content that is palpably false or malicious, and where such content causes irreparable reputational harm, the balance of convenience favors an injunction.
Result: Application for rejection of the plaint dismissed; ad-interim injunction granted directing the removal of the impugned videos and articles.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th MARCH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
I.A. 30090/2025 & I.A. 31798/2025 IN + CS(OS) 957/2024 ISHA FOUNDATION .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Ms. Pushpaveni Kakkaje, Mr. Jagdish Solanki, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Ms. Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Mr. Areeb Amanullah, Mr. Rishabh Pant, Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Pandey and Ms. Apurbaa Dutta, Advocates versus GOOGLE LLC & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Rohith Venkatesan and Ms. Vani Kaushik, Advs. for D-1.
Mr. V. T. Perumal, Dr. Ram Sankar, Ms. K Vaijayanthi, Ms. Shaarumathi, Mr. Ashwin Sam and Mr. Nagender Advs. for D-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 30090/2025 I.A. 31798/2025
1. The present Suit has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) Pass a decree of permanent & mandatory injunction against Defendant Nos. 1-4 to immediately delete/remove/take down the defamatory videos and all the posts/publications/allegations emanating out of the defamatory videos as listed in Paragraph 10 of this Plaint, or any other videos/ posts/publications/allegations which are identical to, or similar in content, on the internet through social media platforms, websites, blogs, or any other media such as the Metaverse, blockchain, any Artificial Intelligence program, or any other media such a print, audio-visual etc. which are defamatory with respect to the Plaintiff, and;
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants No.1-4, their associates, servants, agents, affiliates, assignees, substitutes, representatives, their subscribers, employees and/or persons claiming through them and/or under them and all other persons from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, disseminating etc. the defamatory videos as listed in Paragraph 10 of this Plaint, or any other videos which are identical to, or similar in content, on the internet through social media platforms, websites, blogs, or any other media such as the Metaverse, blockchain, any Artificial Intelligence program, or any other media such a print, audio-visual etc. which are defamatory with respect to the Plaintiff, and;
c) Pass a decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Only) in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants No. 2 and 3, and;
d) Pass an order for costs of the present proceedings, and;
e) Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.”
2. The Plaintiff describes itself as a registered Public Charitable Trust vide Trust Deed dated 07.01.1992 bearing Document No. 6 of 1992 in Book 4 in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. As per the Plaint, the Plaintiff-Trust is dedicated to raising human consciousness and attainment of global harmony, spreading awareness towards social economic and ecological causes by undertaking National and International movements.
3. The Plaint reveals that the Plaintiff-Trust was founded by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev [“the Founder”], who is stated to be an internationally renowned yogi, and often invited to speak at leading international forums. It is stated that the Founder has received India's second highest civilian honor i.e., the Padma Vibhushan in the year 2017. It is stated that the Plaintiff has 16 million followers, about 300 centers spread worldwide and owns and operates a website called https://isha.sadhguru.org/in/en, wherein primarily the videos and discourses of the Founder are disseminated. It is stated that the Plaintiff is also certified by the Yoga Certification Board under the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India as a “Leading Yoga Institute” and it is also recognized by the Department of Personnel Training, Government of India for providing in-service training programs to the Government Officers.
4. As for the Defendants, it is stated that the Defendant No. 1 owns and operates various platforms and websites services, including YouTube w
