Delhi HC expands Isha Foundation injunction, orders 44 more videos removed
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has widened its earlier injunction against allegedly defamatory content targeting Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, ordering platforms to pull down 44 additional videos — 39 short-form and 5 English-language — that were not explicitly named in the March order but were embedded in the original plaint. The ruling signals that courts may treat plaint references as constructively part of injunction applications, with implications for how digital defamation orders are framed and enforced.
Key Takeaways
Delhi High Court on 31 July expanded its interim injunction in the Isha Foundation defamation suit.
An additional 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos allegedly defaming Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev must now be removed by online platforms.
The order was passed by Justice Subramonium Prasad , who treated the application as one for modification, not mere clarification.
The court held the additional videos were already covered by the 19 March order by virtue of their reference in the plaint.
The matter is next listed before the roster Bench on 5 August ; the underlying defamation suit remains pending.
The Delhi High Court on 31 July expanded the scope of its earlier interim injunction in the defamation suit filed by the Isha Foundation, directing online platforms to take down an additional 39 short videos and five English-language videos allegedly containing defamatory content targeting spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad while disposing of a clarification application filed by the Isha Foundation.
Background to the Order
The Isha Foundation had approached the court seeking clarification of the Delhi High Court's 19 March interim order, which had directed the removal of certain videos and articles from online platforms and restrained their further dissemination. The Foundation contended that while the March order addressed links cited in the injunction application, it did not explicitly cover 39 short videos and five English-language videos listed in Paragraph 10 of the original plaint — even though those videos allegedly contained content identical to the material already under injunction.
What the Court Held
Justice Prasad acknowledged that while the application was styled as one seeking clarification, it was 'in fact one for modification.' However, the court held that the relief sought was not beyond the scope of the earlier order, reasoning that the contents of the plaint had already been incorporated into the injunction application by reference.
The court observed: 'Though this application is styled as one for clarification, it is in fact one for modification. The Applicant herein is including links which are not mentioned in the stay application... but these links which are mentioned in the plaint have been referred to at Paragraph 25 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, which makes the content of the Plaint a part and parcel of the said application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prayer in the present application is alien to those in I.A. No. 30090/2025.'
The court further noted that its 19 March order had already held the impugned content to be prima facie defamatory and had specifically referred to Paragraph 25 of the injunction application, which in turn referenced Paragraph 10 of the plaint. Justice Prasad concluded that this reference was 'implication enough' that the additional videos did not require separate adjudication.
Modified Directions to Defendants
Holding that the modification was necessary to give full effect to the earlier order, the High Court directed that Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the 19 March order stand modified. Under the revised directions, Defendants 2 and 3 are restrained from creating, publishing, uploading, or disseminating any defamatory content. Defendants 1 and 3 have been directed to remove the impugned videos and articles, as well as the 39 short videos and five English-language videos cited in Paragraph 10 of the plaint.
What Happens Next
The court directed that the present order be read conjointly with the 19 March order and disposed of the application. The matter is now listed before the roster Bench on 5 August. The underlying defamation suit, in which the Isha Foundation alleges that misleading and defamatory videos targeting Sadhguru continue to circulate on online platforms, remains pending adjudication.
Point of View
As long as the disputed content was listed in the original plaint. Critics could argue this blurs the procedural line between clarification and modification, and potentially makes it easier for well-resourced litigants to secure broader content removals at the interim stage, before the merits of the defamation claim are tested at trial.
NationPress
31 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Delhi High Court order on 31 July in the Isha Foundation case?
The Delhi High Court directed online platforms to remove an additional 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos allegedly containing defamatory content against Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. The order expanded the scope of the court's earlier interim injunction dated 19 March.
Why were these additional videos not covered by the original March order?
The 19 March order addressed links specifically cited in the injunction application but did not explicitly name the 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos listed in Paragraph 10 of the plaint. The Isha Foundation filed a clarification application arguing those videos contained identical defamatory content and should also be covered.
How did the court justify expanding the injunction?
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the plaint's Paragraph 10 had been incorporated into the injunction application by reference at Paragraph 25, making the additional videos constructively part of the earlier order. The court said this was 'implication enough' that no separate adjudication was needed for those videos.
Who are the defendants and what are they restrained from doing?
Defendants 2 and 3 are restrained from creating, publishing, uploading, or disseminating any defamatory content. Defendants 1 and 3 have been directed to remove all impugned videos and articles, including the newly added 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos.
When is the next hearing in the Isha Foundation defamation suit?
The matter is listed before the roster Bench on 5 August. The underlying defamation suit, which alleges that misleading videos targeting Sadhguru continue to circulate online, remains pending final adjudication.
