Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10509
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche – Appellant
Versus
Adele Tomlin – Respondent
CS(OS) 345/2026 | I.A. 10792/2026 | I.A. 10793/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Sonu Kumar Sagar, Ragini Vinaik, Hridyaa Singh
For the Respondents: None
The court may grant an ex-parte interim injunction to restrain harassment and defamation when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and demonstrates the potential for irreparable injury to their reputation and the peaceful conduct of their professional or religious activities.
Headnote:The present suit concerns a claim for permanent and mandatory injunction against the harassment, defamation, and interference with the religious functions of a prominent Buddhist monk. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has engaged in a sustained pattern of disruptive behavior at international religious events and has published defamatory and sexually suggestive content on social media platforms, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's privacy and professional reputation. The court has determined that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, noting that irreparable harm would occur if interim protections were not granted. The main issues involve whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the defendant from physically interfering with ongoing religious gatherings and whether the court should order the removal of defamatory content from public platforms. The court's ratio decidendi rests on the established principle of balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, given his status as a globally respected religious figure, and the necessity of preventing harassment and maintaining public order at religious events. The court ordered that the defendant be restrained from attending, interfering with, or disrupting the plaintiff's events, and must maintain a distance of 500 meters from the plaintiff and his venues, while further directing the removal of specific defamatory content from social media.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural directives for service of summons and filing of written statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. factual allegations of harassment, defamation, and interference. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. grounds for granting interim injunction based on prima facie case and balance of convenience. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
O R D E R
20.04.2026
I.A. 10793/2026 (For Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 345/2026
3. Let the plaint be registered as suit.
4. Issue summons to the defendant, through all permissible modes, including, through the E-mail, which is reflected in the Memo of Parties.
5. The summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the defendant, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which, the written statement shall not be taken on record.
6. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication, if any, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of defendant, be filed by the plaintiff, without which, the replication shall not be taken on record.
7. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
8. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of the documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
9. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 08th July, 2026.
10. List before the Court on 08th September, 2026.
I.A. 10792/2026
11. The present suit has been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing defamatory content, and to prevent harassment, invasion of privacy and interference with religious functions of the plaintiff along with other urgent interim reliefs.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is Buddhist monk, who has taken the vow of celibacy for life.
13. The plaintiff imparts teachings and gives lectures on Buddhist teachings, and travels all over the country, as well as and different parts of the world.
14. He submits that the defendant began attending the plaintiff’s religious teachings under the guise of a participant from May, 2025 onwards.
15. He submits that during a teaching event in Hanoi, Vietnam, the defendant engaged in disruptive and confrontational conduct, including, interfering with the organizing of the event, and attempting to make unauthorized announcements.
16. Subsequently, the defendant continued a pattern of disruptive behavior at multiple international religious events, including, in Taiwan and other jurisdictions, causing disturbance and interference in the plaintiff’s teachings.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant has followed the plaintiff at events, engaged in aggressive conduct and caused security concerns, including, incidents in Berlin and Austria, where organizers were compelled to intervene and involve authorities.
18. He further submits that the defendant has published objectionable and defamatory content on social media, using images from the plaintiff’s religious events combined with inappropriate material.
19. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the various documents, wherein, the plaintiff has made complaints against the inappropriate behavior of the defendant in various religious events, where, the plaintiff gives religious discourses about the teachings of Buddhism.
20. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the Face-book post of the defendant, wherein, the defendant has posted her inappropriate images along with images of the plaintiff, who is a monk, along with other monks and has also made reference to the
