Summary
In the case of Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors., the court dealt with a suit seeking removal of online videos and articles said to be defamatory against the foundation and its founder, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff pleaded that the impact of the alleged defamation was felt in Delhi. It refused to reject the plaint on objections relating to authorization and limitation, and granted an interim injunction directing removal of the impugned content.
Background
Online Defamation and Removal Claims
The plaintiff is a public charitable trust founded by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. It filed a suit against a platform operator and publishers of certain videos and articles.
The plaintiff alleged that eleven videos and related publications contained false and defamatory statements about the trust, its founder, and its activities. It sought removal of the content, restraint against similar future publication, and damages.
The defendants challenged the suit on jurisdiction, authorization, and limitation.
Questions Before the Court
1. Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction in a case of online defamation.
2. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. Whether lack of authorization could defeat the suit at the threshold.
4. Whether certain videos were barred by limitation.
5. Whether an interim injunction could be granted in a defamation case involving online content.
Court’s Analysis
Court’s Analysis of Territorial Jurisdiction
The court relied on Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that mere online accessibility cannot give every court jurisdiction. It examined the plaint and found specific pleadings that the impact of the videos was felt prominently in Delhi, including emails from followers and volunteers in Delhi and the plaintiff’s presence there. On that basis, it held that Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis of Rejection of Plaint
The court held that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, does not apply to a public charitable trust such as the plaintiff. It examined the trust deed and found clauses relating to delegation, representation before courts, and signing of pleadings. It also held that even if there were a defect in institution, it would be curable. The court therefore refused to reject the plaint at the threshold.
Court’s Analysis of Limitation
The court noted that two videos were older than one year, but also noted the plaintiff’s case that those videos formed part of a larger campaign and that their contents were repeated later. It held that questions of republication and fresh cause of action required detailed examination and could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11. The issue was left open for trial.
Court’s Analysis of Interim Injunction and Free Speech
The court applied the usual test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. It referred to Bonnard v. Perryman and to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited on caution in granting pre trial restraint on publication.
After examining the videos and articles, the court formed a prima facie view that the manner of publication showed malice. It described the titles as click bait and sensational, and held that certain statements crossed the line between criticism and defamation. It also noted that some allegations continued despite clarifications from authorities. On that basis, it held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that reputational harm could not be adequately compensated by money alone.
Findings
The court held that:
1. It had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. The objections relating to authorization and limitation required examination at trial.
4. The impugned videos and articles were prima facie defamatory.
5. The plaintiff had made out a case for interim injunction.
The court directed removal of the impugned videos and articles. It also restrained further publication and re uploading of the same content until the next date of hearing.
Case Citation
Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors., CS(OS) 957/2024, decision dated 19 March 2026 (Delhi High Court)
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/135588578/ Visited on: 25 March 2026
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.