Delhi High Court reportedly orders removal of 44 more videos in Isha Foundation case

The Delhi High Court has reportedly directed the removal of 44 additional videos in Isha Foundation’s pending defamation suit against Google LLC, Nakkheeran Publications and others.

According to a report published by SCC Times on August 3, 2026, Justice Subramonium Prasad modified an earlier interim order to expressly include 39 short videos and five English-language videos identified in the foundation’s plaint. SCC Times reported that the application, I.A. 11822/2026 in Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors., was decided on July 28, 2026.

The reported modification concerns material that Isha Foundation said was already part of its original cause of action but was not expressly included in the operative language of the March 19, 2026 interim injunction. SCC Times said the court concluded that expressly adding the videos was a permissible modification intended to implement the earlier order, rather than a new adjudication or expansion of relief.

The March 19 order is independently documented in a Delhi High Court judgment in the same suit, CS(OS) 957/2024. In that order, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Nakkheeran Publications and its publisher and editor from publishing or disseminating defamatory content concerning Isha Foundation, pending further proceedings. It also directed Google and another defendant to bring down videos and articles identified in the injunction application.

The underlying suit concerns Isha Foundation’s allegations that content distributed through Nakkheeran-linked YouTube channels and a website was false, malicious and defamatory. Those allegations are claims made by the plaintiff in civil litigation and have not been finally adjudicated. The reported July 28 order is also an interim procedural development, not a final ruling on the merits of the defamation claims.

The July order itself could not be independently located in the Delhi High Court materials reviewed for this report. The additional-video directive is therefore reported here based on SCC Times’ account, while the existence and terms of the March interim injunction are supported by the Delhi High Court’s published judgment.