In a defamation suit that spotlighted the tension between digital free speech and institutional reputation, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Isha Foundation, a prominent yoga and spiritual organisation led by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. The Court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction ordering Google LLC and other defendants to remove a YouTube video titled \u201cSadhguru EXPOSED: What\u2019s happening in Jaggi Vasudev\u2019s Ashram?\u201d posted by journalist and content creator Shyam Meera Singh. The video, viewed over nine lakh times and heavily commented on, was found to tarnish the Foundation\u2019s image.<\/p>\n
The Plaintiff, Isha Foundation, sought extensive relief against Google LLC (Defendant No. 1), its YouTube platform, social media intermediaries, and Shyam (Defendant No. 4). Isha Foundation’s main claims were:<\/p>\n
Isha Foundation supported its case with credentials: it is a certified \u201cLeading Yoga Institute\u201d by the Ministry of AYUSH, serves as a training partner for Indian civil services, and commands over 16 million followers across 300 global centres.<\/p>\n
Shyam’s video, uploaded on 24th<\/sup> February 2025, was allegedly based on an internal email that cast the Foundation in a defamatory light. Isha Foundation contended that this email was fabricated. Although Shyam sent emails seeking clarification, the Foundation responded promptly, stating the email was fake. Importantly, Shyam did not share the email with the Foundation or verify it with the purported senders.<\/p>\n The Court noted Singh\u2019s promotional activity for the video, including tweets and posts prior to its upload, and found the title itself (“Sadhguru EXPOSED”) to be crafted for sensationalism. The video\u2019s wide reach and provocative framing made the issue particularly urgent from a reputational standpoint.<\/p>\n Justice Subramonium Prasad, applying the four-part test for interim injunction in defamation matters as laid down in\u00a0Hanuman Beniwal v. Vinay Mishra<\/em>, held:<\/p>\n The Court concluded that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm strongly favoured the Plaintiff. Citing Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Bloomberg TV v. Zee Entertainment<\/em>, the Court ruled that the video had a direct impact on the dignity and reputation of the Plaintiff, and therefore warranted urgent interim protection.<\/p>\n The matter, initially listed for further proceedings on 9th May 2025, was adjourned without substantive developments and is now listed for hearing on 9th September, 2025.<\/p>\n Citation:<\/strong>\u00a0Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors.<\/em>, I.A. 6732-35\/2025 in CS (OS) 159\/2025 (High Court of Delhi, 12th March, 2025). Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/170762296\/<\/a>, Visited on: 26\/05\/2025.<\/p>\nCourt’s Findings and Legal Reasoning<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Directions Issued<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n