Delhi HC Expands Takedown Order Against Google to Cover 39 Short Videos and 5 English-Language Videos in Isha Foundation Defamation Suit
Justice Subramonium Prasad modified a March 2026 interim order to explicitly include 44 additional videos Isha Foundation had flagged as per se defamatory in its plaint.
The High Court of Delhi on 28 July 2026 modified its earlier interim injunction in a defamation suit brought by Isha Foundation against Google LLC and others, extending an existing takedown direction to cover 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos that had been identified in the plaint but were not separately enumerated in the original order. Justice Subramonium Prasad, sitting singly, held that although the application was formally styled as one for clarification under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was in substance a modification — and one that was warranted in the spirit of the earlier order. The modification matters because it settles a structural question about how cross-references between a plaint and an interlocutory application translate into the operative terms of an interim injunction.
The Interim Order of 19 March 2026 and the Gap It Left
On 19 March 2026, the Court had allowed I.A. No. 30090/2025, an application by Isha Foundation under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Paragraphs 58 and 59 of that order directed Defendants No. 2 and 3 to refrain from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, or disseminating any defamatory content, articles, or videos until the next date of hearing. Defendants No. 1 and 3 were separately directed to take down impugned videos and articles uploaded at links mentioned in Paragraph 10 and Paragraphs 25 to 51 of I.A. No. 30090/2025. Paragraph 60 restrained any member of the public from re-uploading the same videos on any social media platform.
The problem, as Isha Foundation later identified, was that Paragraph 10 of the plaint — which listed 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos — had not been separately reproduced or enumerated in the March order, even though Paragraph 25 of I.A. No. 30090/2025 had incorporated the plaint's contents by reference.
Isha Foundation's Application for Clarification
Isha Foundation filed I.A. 11822/2026 seeking a clarification that the directions in Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the March order should be read to include those 44 additional videos. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the prayer in I.A. No. 30090/2025, though “not happily worded,” encompassed all links at Paragraph 10 of the plaint. The argument rested on the chain of cross-references: Paragraphs 25 to 47 of I.A. No. 30090/2025 dealt with 11 videos originally listed in Paragraph 10 of the plaint; Paragraph 10 of the plaint also contained the 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos; and since Paragraph 25 of the application made the plaint a part and parcel of the application, those additional videos fell within what the Court had adjudicated on 19 March 2026.
Counsel for Defendants No. 2 and 3 resisted the application. Their position was that the plaintiff was effectively seeking a review, not a clarification. The prayers in the present application went beyond what had been sought in I.A. No. 30090/2025, and granting them would allow the plaintiff to bypass procedure and expand the scope of the interim injunction without a fresh hearing.
How the Court Reasoned Through the Clarification-versus-Modification Distinction
Justice Prasad agreed with the defendants on the characterisation: the application was not truly one for clarification but for modification. The 44 videos had not been individually listed in I.A. No. 30090/2025; they appeared only in the plaint, which Paragraph 25 of the application had incorporated by reference.
However, the Court declined to reject the application on that basis alone. It returned to the March order and noted that the earlier judgment had specifically mentioned Paragraph 25 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, which directly referenced Paragraph 10 of the plaint, and had viewed the content there as per se defamatory. That finding, the Court reasoned, was implication enough that the 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos did not require a separate adjudication. They were already part of the adjudicatory record of 19 March 2026 by virtue of how I.A. No. 30090/2025 had been framed.
On the question of procedure, the Court held that the modification being sought was consistent with the spirit of the earlier order rather than contrary to it. A modification of this kind — to make explicit what was already implicit in the order's reasoning — did not amount to a review. The March order's rationale had already covered the content in question; the present application simply sought to reflect that coverage in the operative paragraphs.
The Court also directed that whenever a certified copy of the Order dated 19 March 2026 is applied for, a copy of the present order must be supplied alongside it, so that the two orders are read conjointly.
Outcome
Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Order dated 19 March 2026 were modified. Paragraph 59 now reads to direct Defendants No. 1 and 3 to take down the impugned videos and articles at the links mentioned in Paragraph 10 and Paragraphs 25 to 51 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, as well as the 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos mentioned at Paragraph 10 of the plaint. The application, I.A. 11822/2026, was disposed of accordingly. The matter is listed before the Roster Bench on 5 August 2026.