The Delhi High Court has clarified and modified its earlier interim injunction in Isha Foundation’s defamation suit against Google LLC and others, directing that 39 short videos and five English-language videos referred to in the plaint must also be taken down, holding that they were already covered by the scope of its March 19 order.
Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while allowing an application filed by the Foundation seeking clarification of the Court’s interim order dated March 19, 2026.
The Foundation contended that although the earlier order directed the removal of the impugned videos and articles referred to in the injunction application, it did not expressly mention the 39 short videos and five English-language videos listed in Paragraph 10 of the plaint, even though they contained content identical to the videos already directed to be taken down.
Opposing the plea, Defendants argued that the application was, in substance, a review of the March 19 order and that the plaintiff was attempting to enlarge the scope of the interim injunction by introducing links that had not been part of the original application.
The Court observed that although the application had been styled as one seeking a clarification, it was in effect an application for modification. However, it held that the relief sought could not be treated as introducing an entirely new case because Paragraph 25 of the earlier injunction application expressly incorporated the contents of the plaint, making them part and parcel of that application.
Justice Prasad further noted that the Court’s March 19 order had already held the impugned content referred to in Paragraph 25 of the injunction application to be per se defamatory, and since that paragraph directly referred to Paragraph 10 of the plaint, the additional videos did not require a separate adjudication.
“
“Though it has been observed earlier that the instant Application is one for modification/clarification of the Order dated 19.03.2026, this Court is of the opinion that this modification is necessary in spirit of the Order dated 19.03.2026, and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the instant Application.”
Accordingly, the Court modified paragraphs 58 and 59 of its earlier order to expressly direct Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to take down not only the videos and articles identified in the injunction application but also the 39 short videos and five English-language videos mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the plaint.
The Court directed that the present order be read together with its order dated March 19, 2026, and ordered that copies of both orders be supplied whenever a certified copy of the earlier order is issued.
The matter is listed for August 05, 2026.
